Evening Post. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1917. MILITARY OFFENCES

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 68, 18 September 1917, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1917. MILITARY OFFENCES

The Expeditionary forces Amendment Bill has been read a second time in the House of Representatives without the careful scrutiny which tile importance of some of its provisions demands. The Committee stage is of course the proper time for the moving of amendments, and that has still to come, but a previous discussioa of the principles involved would have prepared the way for. the satisfactory shaping of amendments in Committee. The Otago Daily Times calls attention, to one important provision of the Bill which has-attracted little attention so far, but which, whether one shares our contemporary's doubts concerning the principle involved or not, certainly deserves v.cry careful consideration* The provision in question is clause 12, which adds the deprivation of civil rights to the military penalties already provided for- certain offences. "Every person," says the governing part of this clause, " who has heretofore been, or who may hereafter be, convicted of desertion from the Expeditionary Force, or of disobedience to the lawful commands of a superior officer, whether such offence has been committed in New Zealand or ekewhere, and whether before or after the passing of this Act; shall by operation of this section be deprived of civil rights for a period of ten years from the date of such conviction." This is a. very drastic addition to the penalties already provided, and* though the deserter is the very last person to excite' or to deserve sympathy, theVe are 'several points in tie clause that merit close examina-

The Otago Daily Times goes so far-as" to ai'gua that the whole provision is radically wrong. The clause infringes, according to our contemporary, "a wellrecognised principle of British justice— namely, that a person shall not suffer a double punishment for a single offence." We are bound to say that we entirely dissent from this general statement. It is true that the law in general protects a man from being twice punished for the same offence, but it abounds in examples of penalties which are alternative or cumulative at the option of the convicting tribunal, or which are automatically added to the special punishment inflicted by the tribunal. The first of these methods is illustrated by the penal clauses included in th</ Defence Act long before the War. Defaulters under the military training scheme were liable to a fine, and also, at the discretion of the Court, to the loss of civil fights for a term not exceeding ten years. We never heard this prpcedure condemned as un-British or unjust, and it certainly commended itself to the common sense of the country. The question is really one of quantum and not of number or principle. A penalty, whether single or double, may be too severe, but if in its total effect it is not too severe it may surely be dual or even, multiform in its operation without prejudice to its justice.

In the second statement of its objection to the clause, our contemporary introduces qualifying.words which seem to

us to go to the root of the matter. After pointing out that military offenders are. already severely punished under^ military law, our contemporary proceeds: "To subject them, as the Bill proposes,-to the additional" punishment of the loss of civil. rights for a- period of ten years, upon the mere certificate of the Commandant, without any right whatever of appeal, would, we suggest, be harsh, unjust, and tin-British." "The mere certificate of tho Commandant" and the absence of any right of appeal to a civil tribunal in respect of a civil disqualification are very serious objections. .To these twos we may add two more—viz., that the civil disqualification proposed recognises no distinction bet^vgeh desertion, which in its worst form is to be classed with treason, and disobedience to lawful commands, -which in its mildest form verges on the trivial; and that for both these classes of offences, and for every degree within each class, a uniform ten years' deprivation of civil rights is proposed. While we regard the addition of a civil disqualification to the purely military punishment as sound and salutary in the ca-se. of a citizen army, a check upon the rough-and-ready tnethods of military jr tice seems desirable before the civil disqualification attaches. The right of appeal to- a civil tribunal empowered to accommodate the period of disqualification to the gravity of the offence would meet all reasonable objec-, tions to the clause.

Clause 10 raises another important point of principle by reason of its retrospective operation. It is impossible to pronounce judgment upon the Fitzgerald case till both sides have been fully heard, and it is unnecessary to anticipate the statement which Mr. Massey said yesterday that the Minister of Defence will make in Committee. A clause retrospectively depriving an injured man of his normal legal remedies fis not a clause to be lightly passed, and it is to 'be hoped that the Minister will show that clause 10 does not come under that I description. \