TREACHERY BILL. (Hansard, 22 May 1940) (original) (raw)
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read-a Second time."
The main provision in this Bill is contained in Clause 1, which provides that the extreme penalty of death may be exacted in certain grave cases of espionage and sabotage. Under this Clause, it is an offence for any person, with intent to help the enemy, to do or attempt or conspire with any other person to doany act which is designed or likely to give assistance to the naval, military or air operations of the enemy, to impede such operations of His Majesty, or to endanger life… In each case, be it noted, the act must have been done with intent to help the enemy. It must, as the Title of the Bill implies, have been an act of treachery. Acts containing this element of treachery would, of course, be treason. They would involve, in the language of the Treason Acts, adhering to the King's enemies,186 giving them aid and comfort. It is probably safe to say that, so far as concerns the acts themselves, nothing is made an offence by Clause 1 of this Bill which would not already be an offence under the Treason Acts. Under the ordinary law, therefore, the type of action specified in this Bill is already an offence, and an offence for which very heavy penalties are provided by the Treason Acts.
Why then, it may be asked, is this Bill necessary? During the last war, power was taken, under the Defence of the Realm Acts passed in 1914 and 1915, to enable, not only courts-martial, but also civil courts sitting with a jury, to impose the extreme penalty of death on persons convicted of offences against any of the Defence of the Realm Regulations if it was proved that the offences had been committed with the intention of assisting the enemy. In the course of the last war 10 persons—all, I think, aliens—were dealt with by court-martial under the Regulations made in accordance with these provisions. I cannot find any record, however, of the death penalty having been imposed under the Regulations by a civil court. Hon. Members will recollect that when proceedings were taken against Roger Casement he was put on trial for high treason before a civil court, and was sentenced to death under the Treason Acts.
When the Emergency Powers (Defence) Bill was introduced in Parliament at the outbreak of this war, it contained no provision for the death penalty to be imposed for acts done with intent to assist the enemy, as it was thought at that time that the most serious types of offence for which the death penalty would be appropriate could best be dealt with under the Treason Acts. As a result, however, of further consideration, the conclusion has been reached that the Treason Acts, although, as I have said, they probably cover all the actions made punishable by Clause 1 of the Bill, cannot safely be relied upon as extending to all the classes of persons by whom such offences might be committed. The Treason Acts apply to all British subjects, wherever they may be, and also—by reason of a doctrine known as the doctrine of local allegiance—to aliens resident within His Majesty's jurisdiction. I am advised, however, that this doctrine of local allegiance could not reasonably be held to apply to aliens who had come to this country in a clandestine way for a187 hostile purpose intending, whether by espionage or by committing acts of sabotage, to undermine our system of national defence. It is obviously desirable that all classes of aliens in this country, whether they are normally resident here or have come here solely for a hostile purpose, should be made equally liable to the death penalty, if they commit offences of this kind.
This then is the first reason why fresh legislation is thought necessary. It is not the only reason. The second reason is one of procedure. The procedure prescribed by the Treason Acts dates back to the fourteenth century; and in some respects it is out of harmony with the conditions in which we find ourselves at the present time. It seems to the Government desirable therefore that, if persons commit such grave acts of treachery as are contemplated in Clause 1 of this Bill, they should be tried in accordance with the ordinary procedure of the courts, without the special forms and dignities of a treason trial.
In the third place, legislation is necessary because it has been thought desirable to make provision enabling enemy aliens to be tried in suitable cases by court-martial. Section 1, Sub-section (5) of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act provides that Defence Regulations shall not authorise the trial by courts-martial of persons who are not subject to the Naval Discipline Act, to military law or to the Air Force Act. It was the intention of Parliament, when that Act was passed, that all civilians charged with offences against Defence Regulations should be tried by civil courts. For the specially serious type of offence with which this Bill deals, it is thought appropriate that there should be power to direct, in suitable cases, that enemy aliens—and this provision is confined to enemy aliens—should be tried by courts-martial. In the type of case to which I have already referred, where an enemy alien has come to this country in a clandestine way for a hostile purpose, it might well be appropriate that, if he were apprehended, he should be dealt with summarily by court-martial rather than be committed for trial in a civil court. I should make it clear, however, that any British subject or neutral alien charged with an offence under this Bill will retain his right to trial by jury.
188 At a time like this I do not think it is necessary for me to bring forward arguments to justify the proposition that persons found guilty of grave acts of treachery towards the State should suffer the extreme penalty of death. There are, I know, hon. Members in this House who are opposed in principle to capital punishment, and in ordinary times they would no doubt feel bound to resist any proposal which they regarded as an extension of the limits within which capital punishment may be imposed. I hope I have shown, by what I have said already, that in as much as the treacherous actions specified in Clause 1 of the Bill are for the most part already offences under the law relating to treason, this Bill does not involve any serious extension of the offences for which the death penalty may be imposed. But in any event I would venture to suggest, with the greatest respect for the opinions of those to whom I have referred, that the circumstances of to-day are far more compelling than any arguments about capital punishment. This is a moment, if ever there was one, for swift and drastic action; and if any justification is needed for the proposals in Clause 1 of this Bill the grim realities of our present situation provide, in themselves, sufficient justification—without any arguments of mine.