– in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 17 Rhagfyr 1947.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Mr. Anthony Brooke has been refused permission to enter Sarawak to present his case to the Residents Court in that place for damages against the Sarawak Press Company and Mr. Digby, the legal adviser to the Sarawak Government, with regard to an alleged libel; why there is no provision for legal representation in the Sarawak courts; and why a British subject is refused the right to plead his case in the British Colony where the wrong has been committed.
Mr. Creech Jones:
The reasons for the exclusion of Mr. Anthony Brooke from Sarawak are known, and have been given to the House. They were in no way affected by the institution of the libel action. At the time of the application referred to, it was pointed out to Mr. Brooke that Mr. Digby had stated that he would submit to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom or Singapore Courts; or alternatively that Mr. Brooke could continue the action in Sarawak through an attorney. As to legal representation in the Sarawak courts, there are no lawyers in private practice in Sarawak and so far, I am informed, there has been no demand for them; but the courts grant permission in appropriate cases for a lawyer from outside the Colony to appeal.
Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that it is exactly a year since this question was raised by me in the House? The right hon. Gentleman then said it would only take a short time before Mr. Brooke would be allowed in, and does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that everything is being done to victimise this wretched man, and to prevent him from at least saying what he wants to say, and going to places from which, without ever being brought to trial on any charge, he has been excluded by the right hon. Gentleman, who said it was an illegal action to go there?
Mr. Creech Jones:
That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper. It is true that this question was raised a year ago, and I am in communication with the Governor in regard to the whole matter of the future of Mr. Brooke in that part of the world.
Does my right hon. Friend realise that his reasons, or rather excuses, for excluding Mr. Brooke from Sarawak have never satisfied hon. Members of this House, and that we regard the decision as tyrannical, and a violation of the rights of a British subject?
Mr. Creech Jones:
The reasons have been given in this House and are reasons determined by the Government—[HON. MEMBERS "They never satisfied us."]—I have already stated that this is a matter which is a subject of discussion with the Governors concerned.
In reference to the original answer, and in view of the fact that it is admitted that the legal adviser to the Government of Sarawak wrote this article, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his policy that members of the Colonial legal service are to be given leave and licence to make attacks on those with whom they disagree politically, and are then protected against those persons answering the attacks among the people to whom those attacks were published?
Mr. Creech Jones:
No protection is being given to anybody. The question was that a libel action was to lie in the court of Sarawak and the defendants concerned were quite prepared for the case to be heard elsewhere, if there were difficulties in the way of the applicant presenting his case in person.
The right hon. Gentleman stopped him.
Mr. Creech Jones:
I am looking into the whole problem of legal procedure in the courts of Sarawak and giving personal attention to the position of Mr. Brooke in regard to entrance to Sarawak, and discussing the problems with the Governors on the spot.
Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate my point, which is a very serious one? The whole object of bringing a libel action is not to get damages, but to show the answer to the attack that is made. If it is impossible to make that answer clear among the people to whom the libel is published, is not the plaintiff hopelessly prejudiced? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that matter?
Mr. Creech Jones:
I will certainly look into the matter, but the defendants expressed their willingness to have the case heard either in Singapore or United Kingdom courts.
In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been looking into it for a year, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.