THOMPSON-HOTOP CASE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 247, 13 July 1921, Page 6

THOMPSON-HOTOP CASE

COMMISSION’S DECISION BOTH PARTIES VINDICATED FALSE ACCUSATION MADE IN GOOD FAITH The report of the commission that considered the petition of Henry Harsant Thompson against his conviction and imprisonment by a military court-martial has been issued. Thompson was charged before the court-martial in September, 1917. with having knowingly made a false statement affecting the character of a superior officer by stating that on a certain date Captain F. R. Hotop was noticeably under the influence of liquor while on duly. He was found guilty, and sentenced to 112 days’ detention. His subsequent efforts to have the decision reversed attracted considerable public attention. The commission finds that the court-martial was properly constituted : that the court acted wrongly in throwing upon Thompson the onus of proving that his accusation was made in good faith; that the accusation was made in good faith; that Captain Hotop was sober on the occasion mentioned by Thompson, and his renutation for insobriety was due to his manner. The commission reverses the finding of the courtmartial. and awards costs to Thompson The costs will bo paid at once bv the Government. The question of Thompson’s right to compensation will be referred to a Parliamentary committee.

An official summary of the report of the commission is as follows: — The questions upon which the commission was asked to report were: 1. Whether there was anything in the personality of the said court-martial or otherwise in regard to its constitution or procedure rendering it open to any objection on the part of the accused. 2. Whether there was evidence to support the judgment arrived at by the said court-martial, and whether tho judgment was such as a reasonable body of men acting as a court-martial could properly have arrived at. 3. Whether you, the said Commissioner, reviewing the judgment of tho said courtmartial and the evidence before it, and hearing such new evidence ns you may think fit to allow, are of opinion that the judgment of the said court-martial is one which you consider ought to be confirmed. reversed, or varied, and to what extent. The first question is answered in fhe negative, with the exception of an objection to the non-admiesion by the court of certain evidence tendered by Mr. 'Thompson. “It was stated by counsel for Mir. Thompson that there was nothing in the personality of the court or otherwise in regard to its constitution or procedure fo which his client took obiection. Mr. Thompson staled that anything that had appeared in the Press or otherwise casting any reflection on the personality or constitution of the court had not emanated from him.” With reference to the second question, the Commissioner considers at length the principles upon which evidence of surrounding circumstances is admissible in similar eases to prove the accused’s state of mind. He holds that the burden of proof was, us in. criminal cases, on the prosecution, and that the fact that his state of mind was peculiarly within Mr. Thompson’s knowledge did not relieve the prosecution of that onus. From the prosecutor’s addresses before

the court-martial, and from the rulings of the court, tho Commissioner concludes that the court proceeded on the principle, that the onus of proving good faith rested entirely with the accused; and evidence to prove his good faith was restricted to the day of his examination by the Medical Board. The Commissioner decides that the court erred in both these rulings, and examines very carefully the evidence available to prove tho accused’s good faith under the wider ruling. He sums up his conclusions on this point as follows:

“Since in a criminal prosecution the charge must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and more clearly than in a case in a civil court, lam of opinion that the evidence actually given before the court did not warrant the accused’s conviction. Ido not regard the omission by the accused to make the accusation in question in his first letter of August 9, or his strong desire on health reasons not to be passed for active service, as affording sufficient prima facie evidence for the prosecution of bad faith on his part, to shift the onus of proof of good faith on to him. I consider that tho evidence as a whole given before the court was insufficient to show that the accused did not believe on reasonable grounds in the truth of his accusation, such grounds being Captain Hotop’s manner. deposed to by other witnesses, the evidence of the witness Walker as to the conversation he had with the accused, tho accused's evidence of the conversations he had with soldiers on August 8 after leaving the board, and the evidence of his good character given by the witnesses for the prosecution without objection. on the part of the prosecutor.” The Commissioner then proceeds:— “But even were 1 of opinion that the evidence, actually given before tho court was sufficient to warrant the conviction,

I should still hold that the judgment, should be set aside on the grounds (1) that the whole onus, of proving his good

faith was thrown upon the accused, and (21 especially that- ho was debarred by rulings of the court from giving evi-

deuce of extraneous mutters concerning Captain Hotop’s reputation that had come i to his hearing before he wrote the letter I of August 22, 1917, containing the ac- } cusation in question.” J The second question is nnswcrexl in | the negative as -regards each branch of the question. i With reference to tho third question, ! tho Commissioner states he allowed full latitude to all parties represented at' the , hearing, as regarded both the production of evidence and the giving of addresses, lie was satisfied that Captain Hotop had a general reputation in camp of being frequently under the influence of liquor, ■ and this reputation was tho subject ot 1 numerous conversations among the men, ami was well known by Mr. Thompson at the time of the Medical Board. Mt. Thompson appeared to the Comrnis- ■ sioner to give hi° evidence tn a straightforward way, and he was not ranter ally shaken in cross-examination. The Grown Solicitor closely cross-examined him as to the statements in his petition to Parliament regarding his financial loss arising out of’the eourt-martiril’s sentence, but tho. Commissioner did not treat any exaggeration of bis claim against the. Government as seriously affecting h>s credibility as regarded his other evidence. Mr. Tfimnnson’s witnesses appeared to give their evidence fairly. S.S.AL Blandford, called by the Crown, .stated that he could understand people who did not know Captain Hotop labouring under the impression that he was not sober on account: of his peculiar manner and natural appearance. “Be had a gruff, abrupt manner, very reserved., nnd very thoughtful.” This evidence tended to support Mr. Thomn,vnii’s witnesses. who spoke of Captain Hoton’s reputation in vamp. li answer to the third question the Commissimrr finds that Air. Thompson believed the accusation made on August 22 to be true, and had reasonable grounds for that belief, and the judgment of tho ; com l-mnrtial ought Io be reversed. / The Commissioner further stales he is j satisfied that Contain Hotop was sober at the Medical Board. What witnesses have described as his “dazed condition” ]

and “dreamy look” explained by the Crown witness, S.S.M. Blandford as his natural look, coupled with a certain gruffness of manner, was mistaken, by men at camp for signs of indulgence in alcoholic liquor. Witnesses who saw and spoke to Captain Hotop at different times of the day over a considerable period deposed that in their relations with him in camp they had always found him sober It appeared also that Captain Hotop performed a larger number of operations than any of the other medical officers. It seems incredible that, he would have been allowed to operate so frequently if his condition was as described liy Mr. Thompson’s witnesses. . The Commissioner adds that if the accused had been properly convicted of the offence charged against him, the sentence cf court was not excessive. The case would have bo’-n one warranting the imposition of the maximum detention that was imposed under tho regulations. Costs amounting tn .235 I?.s. are awarded Mr. Thompson for his-costs nt the coir mission, and the opinion expressed tint lie should bo allowed his costs in the court-martial