Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

USA TROOPS.
OWN COURTS IN BRITAIN.
Commons Passes Bill.
LONDON, Aug 4.-The Bill pro- t
viding that criminal offences on the c
part of members of the US armed 1
forces in Britain shall be removed
from the jurisdiction of British
courts was passed by the House of I
Commons today. c
The Home Secretary (Mr Mor
rison) [whose speech was summar- c
ised in "The West Australian" yes- a
terday] said: It was the considered
opinion of the US authorities that
it was most expedient and, from r
their constitutional point of view,
right that any offences on the part I
of members of those forces be tried 8
in their own military courts, not in t
British courts. The American forces r
were accustomed to their own pro- t
cedure in these matters and al- t
though that procedure was not
very dissimilar from our own never- s
theless they would be more famil- s
iar in dealing with their own auth- v
orities in their own customary way. o
The British Government felt the 1
American claim was well based, Mr s
Morrison said, and ought to be con- 1
ceded, both from their point of view 1
and as a practical matter. We had t
ourselves successfully made pre- C
cisely the same claim in the case of I
British forces in France in the last 4
war. The Government anticipated
no friction between our own and the s
American authorities, who had I
shown every willingness to co-oper- J
ate with us and be helpful in carry- 1
ing out the agreement. Proceedings b
of American courts would be ine
open session unless security re
quired them to be held in secret.
Prompt Proceedings.
We had been assured by the Am
erican authorities that they would
be prompt in taking proceedings and
would do their best to see that those
proceedings were heard as near as
possible to the place of the crime.
In cases where it was not clear t
whether the offence ought to be
dealt with by an American military
court or a British court the matter
would be decided by agreement be
tween the British and American
authorities. Civil proceedings were
in no way affected by the measure,
which was solely directed to crim
inal offences. In the case of a
capital offence against a Briton by
an American the offender would be
subject to an American court.
Mr S. S. Silverman (Lab) sid
the Government was rushing the
Bill through not because it was urg
ent but because the Government
did not desire that an agreement
dictated by Washington should be
altered one jot or tittle.
Commander Sir Archibald Southby
(Con) also criticised the Bill.
He suggested that a British magis- 3
trate should assist American courts
in England as an assessor.
Several other members criticised
the Bill
Attorney-Geneafl Reply.
The Attorney-General (Sir Don
ald Somervell) said in reply that he
would not attempt to minimise the
constitutional gravity and import
ance of the step which the Bill
would legalise. The general scale
of penalties which could be im
posed by American courts martial
was similar to our own and he
thought the House might be satis
fled on that point. In the case of
rape the penalty might be death ort
life imprisonment, which was a
more severe penalty than provided
by our own courts. American courts
martial had the power to call for
attendance of witnesses but the
failure of a British witness to at
tend would be dealt with by our civil
courts. In cases concerning British
and American subjects a British civ
ilian or soldier would not be taken
before the American courts although
the matter would be the subject of
discussion between the 2 authorities.
If an American and British sol
dier were both concerned in a breach
of the peace one would go to one
court, one to another. US military
police could not arrest a British sub
ject.
In the last war, Sir Donald pro
ceeded, the Americans made exactly
the same request as they did today.
Parliament was not asked to pass
a Bill but in fact no American sol
dier was dealt with by our courts.
It was not solely a question of jur
isdiction or prestige. The American
authorities regarded an offence com
mitted by an American soldier here
against people or property as a dou
ble offence. In addition to the
actual offence they considered it
was not only doing something to
damage the reputation of the army
but also something likely to im
pair cordial and friendly relations
between the forces and the civilian
population among whom they would
be living and moving in the present
circumstances. We should feel just
the same about our own forces in
similar circumstances abroad. This
was an element a court martial
could take into account in giving
sentence, which a civil court here
could not. He believed that in its
actual working the Bill would con
duce more to the maintenance of
order and prevention of offences
than if different procedure were
adopted.
$