Orders of the Day — Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill – in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 9 Ebrill 1948.
In Section one hundred and twenty-four of the Army Act (which provides for persons tried, to obtain copies of court martial proceedings) the words "in the case of a general court martial within seven years, and in the case of any other court martial," shall be omitted, for the words "periods of seven or," shall be substituted the words "period of," and for the words "a copy," in each place where they occur there shall be substituted the word "copies."—[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposed new Clause raises a comparatively small, but none the less important point. No doubt the Attorney-General will be familiar with the fact that under Section 124 any person tried by court martial, if it is a general court martial, may, within seven years, and if any other court martial—a district or field general court martial—within three years, apply for a copy of the proceedings. The statutory provision only provides for the application for one copy, and there is no statutory provision for getting two copies. This is not a point of which I have any personal experience, but it has been brought to my notice that two copies are often very useful, particularly if the convicted person is undergoing arrest and his solicitors are in this country. While the question of an appeal is being considered it is very awk-
ward if the solicitors have the whole of the proceedings and the accused has not, and if the copy gets delayed in transit from one to the other. There ought to be a statutory provision to enable convicted persons to obtain not just one copy, but copies of the proceedings. The new Clause seeks to omit the words
in the case of a general court martial within seven years, and in the case of any other court martial.
We feel it reasonable that any person convicted should have the right to apply within a much narrower period. In the past there have been complaints about the number of petitions put in long after a conviction. Seven years in which to apply would not facilitate that: we feel that three years for application for copies is ample in any case. There is really no harm in saying that the accused should be able to obtain two or three copies, provided also that provision is made for payment of the additional cost. I think I have made the point clear. It is merely a point of procedure, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
I think we may be able to meet the intention behind this new Clause. When a copy of the proceedings is asked for there would be no difficulty. It would be asked for from the office of the Judge Advocate-General, and there would be no difficulty in providing, on request, one or two extra carbon copies. I believe that has been the general practice.
We are up against a difficulty, in view of the wording of the Clause. I think I am right in saying that if we accepted this Clause it would make it possible for application to be made at one time for a certain number of copies, and at some subsequent period, within the statutory time limit, for further copies, possibly beyond what the Judge Advocate-General's Department could reasonably be asked to supply. All for which it is reasonable to ask can now be met. Although we are not obliged by statute to provide more than one copy, no difficulty has, in practice, been made about any reasonable request for carbon copies.
In view of that, I take it that the hon. and learned Member does not press the question of the amended time-limit. The provision of the period of seven years for the more important proceedings is made in the interest of the accused, and we should be reluctant to see his rights curtailed in this manner. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member will feel that it is not necessary to press this new Clause.
I am grateful for the explanation that has been given. Of course, the case may arise where the first application is for two copies, one for the accused and one for his solicitor. Then it may be that there is the question of getting the matter before the Divisional Court in some form or other, in which case three or more copies might be wanted. Therefore there might well be a perfectly reasonable case for two applications for different numbers of copies. I understand, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that in every case where there is an appearance of reason behind the request for more than one copy, that request will be acceded to, upon the terms set out in the section of the Army Act—2d. a folio, or whatever it may be, to cover the cost of the shorthand notes. If that be so, I would beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.