JUSTICE IN THE ARMY

Taranaki Daily News, 18 October 1934, Page 7

JUSTICE IN THE ARMY

PETITION TO PARLIAMENT DIVERGENT OPINIONS EXPRESSED. COMMITTEE REPORTS TO HOUSE. MAGISTERIAL INQUIRY ADVISED. (By Wire—Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Last Night. Justice as' it is meted out in the army was seen through different eyes in the House of Representatives to-day when the petition of an aerodrome employee, Leonard Sayers, who is under notice of dismissal, was being considered. Sayers had made a charge against his superior officers, and the Defence Committee recommended a magisterial inquiry. The question which was argued in the House was whether civil or military proceedings gave an accused man the fairer deal, the Opposition supporting civil proceedings, while Government members, with the exception of the chairman of the Defence Committee, Mr. H. G. Dickie, were supporters of a military tribunal for such cases. Mr. J. Hargest (Co., Invercargill) said they had heard a number of charges which had been made by Sayers against the Defence Department, but they had to remember the petitioner was a man who was under notice that his contract was being terminated. When the petitioner had attested he had undertaken to obey his superior officers. If a man had complaints to make he should have followed the usual military channels, but instead of doing that he had chosen to come to Wellington and make all sorts of charges against his superior officers, who had had no opportunity of being present? Mr. W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier): They should have -been there. RIGHTS OF LOWER RANKS. Mr. Hargest: I have met this man’s superior officer, and he doesn’t know yet what these charges are. When this man Sayers went back to the aerodrome he broadcast the charges amongst his fellows. Is there going to be any confidence between a superior officer and a man in any department if the man is to have the right to go straight to ' Parliament and make charges such as this man has done and get away with it? Practically every member of the committee has had military experience, and I consider they should have known better than to have presented such a report. In my opinion it was very wrong for Parliament to allow itself to be used in this way. : Mr. J. A. Lee (Lab., Grey Lynn) said the committee’s report had been made very largely by Government members. He had to confess that he thought Mr. Hargest’s speech was anything but judicial. He thought it was advisable that any member in the civil service should have the right to approach Parliament if he desired to do so. “Probably because I have been a member of the rank and file I have not the same sublime veneration for the courts of military inquiry as is held by the distinguished colonel who has just resumed his seat,” said Mr. Lee. “The old war style was that a private must report to a corporal, a corporal to a sergeant, and so on. A private has the same chance of getting a good hearing before a general as a rich man has of getting through the eye of a needle. (Laughter). JURY OF HIS PEERS. , “I am going to suggest that even the tumble private is entitled to have his case heard by a jury of. his peers. I don’t want an individual to be tried by a jury of colonels. Under such circumstances a private would have to stand to attention with probably a sergeantmajor bawling at him. Under such circumstances the argument of any man is shot to pieces.” The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said that if there was fresh evidence the report should rightly go back to the committee. Personally he had the greatest respect for 'the justice extended to the private in the army. Mr. Lee: Because you were a judge. Mr. Coates: May I just say that I was not by any means always a judge. Strangely as it may seem in this company I was a “soldier’s friend.” I was selected by the soldiers to be their friend. Mr. Lee: Yes, that is true. I admit that. Mr. Coates said he thought army justice worked out fairly well on the whole. It was only reasonable that Defence Department officers should have an opportunity of replying to charges made against them. Mr. Dickie said he did not want to enter into a discussion on military justice. He had seen it in operation and some of it was pretty rough and ready. It was regrettable that the member for Invercargill was not present at the inquiry, but he objected to his coming along and lecturing those who were. The report was referred back to the committee for further consideration.