CASE OF GENERAL BENNETT

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24768, 8 January 1946, Page 5

CASE OF GENERAL BENNETT

NO FURTHER ACTION LIKELY (Special Australian Corresp., N.Z.P.A.) SYDNEY, January 7. Following the finding of Mr Justice Ligertwood. it is probable that the Federal Cabinet will decide to take no further action concerning the inquiry into Lieutenant-General Gordon Bennett’s escape from Singapore. . Public opinion here follows closely the' lines of General Bennett’s own statement after reading the full report of the findings: “I am elated with the result. The only adverse comment deals with the purely legal technicality which most laymen naturally would debate. On the main point at issue, as far as I am concerned, the Judge decided that I acted on unselfish and patriotic motiyes. It pleases me to know that he appreciated the fact that I was able to bring back useful information.” - .

In effect, General Bennett regarded the cease fire order as marking the beginning of unconditional surrender. From the moment of unconditional surrender military law lays down that it is a soldier’s first duty to escape. The Judge found that the Singapore debacle ended not thus, but in capitulation, which implied that the General Officer Commanding in Malaya, Lieu-tenant-General A. E. Percival, had contracted to deliver every Allied soldier into Japanese hands. Thus General Bennett’s subsequent action was technically wrong. The rest of the report recognises the fact that whereas in captivity General Bennett could do nothing for the men of his Bth Division, free, he was able 19 use Bis vital knowledge in striking blows for them and the Allies. As the matter stands the Army could order a court-martial or it could remove General Bennett from the reserve of officers, but this is not thought likely. On the other hand Cabinet is not likely to reimburse General Bennett for the £l5OO which the inquiry has cost him in legal expenses.