7th Gurkha Rifles (Hansard, 21 October 1986)

§ Mr. Freeman

One hundred and thirty six soldiers of support company, 1st Battalion 7th Duke of Edinburgh's own Gurkha Rifles (1/7 GR) took part in Exercise UNION PACIFIC in Hawaii between 13 April and 28 May 1986. The exercise involved company level field training, some of it in conjunction with United States marines and army units. The company was commanded by acting Major Corin Pearce, 31, a non-Gurkhali-speaking officer seconded from the Royal Anglian Regiment.

On 25 May, after the company had returned to camp following an organised off-duty party to mark the end of the exercise, an apparently spontaneous disturbance erupted during which first a Queen's Gurkha officer, Captain Chandra Kumar Pradhan, and subsequently the company commander were violently assaulted and injured. Each sustained two broken ribs, and Major Pearce also suffered head wounds requiring 15 stitches. The violence continued for some time, only two or three Gurkha soldiers or NCOs seeking to intervene or assist. Order was eventually restored with the assistance of two young British officers.

On the return of support company to Hong Kong, a full official inquiry by the special investigation branch of the Royal Military Police was set in train, the normal investigative procedure following such a serious episode. At the initial stages of the investigation, 18 suspects were held under arrest, but they were subsequently released because of the lack of corroborated evidence. Many of the company are known to have been involved in the incident to a greater or lesser extent, and it is certain that most witnessed it, but positive identification again proved difficult, both because of the confusion in the sudden fracas itself and because of the refusal of the soldiers present to give evidence about individuals involved in the assault. The available evidence of identification from various officers was insufficient to frame court martial proceedings against all the ringleaders, nor could this evidence be corroborated.

It was explained to the men that it is a military duty—as indeed it is a civil one—for witnesses to tell an official inquiry all that they know, and that failure to do so was in itself a further offence. Further opportunities were offered for the soldiers to come forward with 823W evidence to the investigators: none did so. The inquiry was therefore closed, and the report referred upwards through the chain of command.

The attack on the two officers and the subsequent refusal of the men fully to co-operate in the inquiry were both serious offences. Together they led to a complete breakdown of trust between the men and their officers, rendering the soldiers militarily ineffective. I should emphasise that only relatively minor grievances emerged from the inquiry, and certainly nothing which in any way justified the major breach of discipline. In particular, I would mention that the allegations—made much of in media comment—that the company commander made remarks of a racist nature have been fully investigated, and no evidence found to support them. All the soldiers well knew, from their service in the Army, of the procedures for redress of complaint, which include direct access to more senior officers than their company commander should they believe it necessary.

Faced with a very serious disciplinary offence which could not be ignored or condoned and with which it was not possible to deal by court martial proceedings, the Army authorities had no alternative but to recommend the administrative discharge of all the 123 members of support company. In identical circumstances, exactly the same action would have been taken in a company of British soldiers, the key issue being that without the bond of trust a soldier is militarily ineffective.

The discharges were recommended unanimously right up the chain of command by the battalion, itself, by the Brigade of Gurkhas, by the Commander British Forces Hong Kong and by senior Army authorities in London. The recommendation was then referred to and approved by Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Defence.

The men of support company were told that administrative discharge was being considered, and advised of their right to make representations. In only 36 cases, approximately one third, were representations submitted. Each was carefully considered and discharge was subsequently rescinded in 12 cases. All those who have been discharged, a total of 110 men to date, have been advised that they have the right of appeal. The continuing availability of impartial advice and the procedures for submitting appeals on an individual basis have also been explained to them. To date two such appeals have been submitted and these are still being considered up the chain of command. At the time of this statement therefore no one has been reinstated. As the men have been administratively discharged, they retain in full their eligibility for pension or gratuity earned by their service up to the date of discharge.

We regard this unhappy incident as an isolated and wholly untypical one which in no way detracts from the very high esteem in which the Brigade of Gurkhas is held. The brigade has a long tradition of gallant and loyal service, and both this Government and the Army are determined to ensure that this episode damages neither our very close and friendly relations with Nepal nor the future role of the Gurkhas in the British Army. As my right honourable Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence made clear in a press statement on 27 September 1985, this role will continue beyond our withdrawal from Hong Kong in 1997. (The text of the statement, which is headed "Hong Kong Stability Permits Force Reductions", is in the Library).