TRIAL OF CIVILIANS

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21167, 17 July 1940, Page 8

TRIAL OF CIVILIANS

NEW COURTS IN BRITAIN MINISTER EXPLAINS ACTION DEATH SENTENCE PROVIDED (Official Wireless) (Received July 17, 3.15 p.m.) RUGBY, July 16 An explanation of the Government's intentions a& regards the scope and duties of the courts to be set up for the trial of civilians in districts where and if military developments were such that the ordinary process of justice could not be followed was given in the House of Commons by Sir John Anderson. He said the proposed courts were

not courts-martial, the Government’s object being to avoid the necessity of establishing anything in the nature of military courts. The special courts, which it was proposed would consist of a president who would be a man of judicial rank or one qualified for a high judicial appointment, assisted by two justices of the peace with knowledge of local conditions, would only operate in such districts as had to be declared as a result, for example, of an attempted invasion or an exceptionally severe air attack. The courts would cease to function on the return of normal conditions. The procedure of these courts would be simplified, so as to permit of speedy dealing with grave offences which were of importance from a military point of view, such as looting and “forcing a safeguard.” Sir John Anderson explained that the ordinary rules of evidence would apply, and an accused person would be allowed legal representation, but unlike the Courts of Assize there would be no jury and no appeal. Full Picture of Proposal In ordfr to give a full picture of the Government’s proposal, Sir John Anderson stated that it was proposed to empower these courts by defence regulations and impose the death sentence for stated offences which under the present law do not carry such a penalty. It might not be found necessary to put the bill into operation, or at any rate not on an extensive scale, but the Government felt that it was desirable to prepare for all contingencies. The bill was subjected to some criticism, which was not confined to one part of the House, and Sir John Anderson said he was prepared to give an undertaking that words would be iiMroduced making it clear that the courts to be set up must be civilians’ courts. Sir John Anderson also said that he would discuss informally with members the terms of the regulations to be made under the bill. Storm of Protest The Emergency Powers Bill provoked a storm of protest from members of the House of Commons, resulting in the Home Secretary withdrawing the proposal to pass the Bill through all stages in one day. Sir John Anderson also promised amendments. After Sir John’s statement as to the nature and functions of the courts which he is proposing to establish by regulation, members maintained that these matters should be continued in the Bill, which, as it stands, gives the Government full discretion on these points. Criticism was also directed against the proposed new courts. A number lof speakers declared that martial * law was preferable in an emergency.