HC Deb 24 June 1964 vol 697 cc81-4W
Mr. Mason

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why three British soldiers, serving in the York and Lancaster Regiment in Swaziland, were not sent to the United Kingdom immediately after they received prison sentences in order that their term of imprisonment could be served in a British prison.

Mr. Kirk

The three British soldiers were convicted on civil offences by a civil court in Swaziland on 27th February, and were each sentenced to six months imprisonment with hard labour. In the absence of special provision to the contrary, a person who is sentenced to imprisonment by a civil court in a Territory must serve his sentence in that Territory. Under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884, however, members of Her Majesty's Regular Military Forces who are undergoing imprisonment in a British Possession may be removed to the United Kingdom to continue their sentences. This provision is not usually invoked in the case of short sentences unless special circumstances exist. It did not appear that special circumstances existed in this case until the beginning of June, when it was learned that after damage to a cell during an escape bid by two of the soldiers in May, conditions in the prison had resulted in the soldiers being subject to overcrowding for a few days.

The three soldiers, together with another soldier who was sentenced on 27th May by a civil court to a nine-month term of imprisonment, were after these few days returned to their original cell which then contained altogether eight prisoners. This was slightly more than the authorised number.

In view of all the circumstances, it was then thought right to bring all four soldiers to this country last week to serve the last part of their sentences.

Mr. Mason

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an assurance that, when British troops are involved in civil offences in African States for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible, he will have them brought to the United Kingdom to serve their sentences and cause a despatch to be sent to the next of kin informing them of the nature of the offence and the type of sentence imposed, in order to avoid distress to relatives who may first read about it in the newspapers.

Mr. Kirk

No. I do not propose to make any changes in the present arrangements under which the four soldiers mentioned in the preceding Question were dealt with.

As regards the second part of the Question, our practice is that when a Service man gets himself into trouble, we should leave it to him to decide whether he should tell his family. Over the years we have found that this is the best course, since many Service men do not wish their families to know of their offences. We do, however, generally arrange for any Service man convicted of an offence to be interviewed and told of the desirability of writing immediately to his next of kin. Although I realise the shock and distress which might result from relatives reading about the matter in the newspapers, I think that our practice is a fair one and, as there is no doubt that Service men prefer it, that we should not change it.

Mr. Mason

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ascertain the conditions under which British soldiers were serving a prison sentence in Manzini prison in Swaziland; to what extent they were overcrowded; what sanitary conditions existed; what food was available: what type of work they were ordered to do; if he will publish the report of the regimental medical officer on this prison; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kirk

Although the main part of the Manzini prison is overcrowded, the three soldiers who were imprisoned there from 27th February until last week were treated as special class prisoners, and were in a cell in a separate part of the prison. They shared the cell with two white South African prisoners and with two coloured prisoners. This cell had its own toilet and shower. On 25th May two of the soldiers and one of the other white prisoners escaped, and the four remaining prisoners were put with African prisoners for four days after the escape while their own cell was being repaired and strengthened. The escaping prisoners were recaptured and spent a short time in cells containing Africans. The seven, together with the sergeant who was sentenced to imprisonment on 27th May, were then returned to the special cell which then held slightly more than the authorised number.

The four soldiers received a special diet which took account of their background and usual diet. This special daily diet, which may be approved for issue to any prisoner regardless of race, included 4 oz. fresh boneless meat, 16 oz. bread, 1 oz. butter or fortified margarine, 1½ oz. cooking oil, fat or lard, ⅓ oz. tea, 2 oz. jam, 6 oz. green leafy vegetables, 8 oz. potatoes, one onion, sugar and salt. It did not include milk, and the main complaint of the soldiers was about the shortage of tea, milk and sugar.

The soldiers were sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour, and their duties included street sweeping.

I do not propose to publish the reports of the regimental medical officer, who was not in any case in medical charge of the soldiers while they were prisoners. By his visits to the soldiers in prison, and these were far in excess of those allowed by normal prison routine, the regimental medical officer was, however, able to satisfy himself by their appearance and by his inquiries of them, that the soldiers remained in good health.