House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Mar 1990

Mr. Hattersley : I give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).

Mr. Archer : I understood the Home Secretary to say that the proposed amendments were not confined to war crimes. Whatever the Government's motives--obviously I am not privy to them--the time to debate them is when the relevant Bill comes before the House. I am wholly in favour of introducing them across the board whatever the motives. We can debate them when the time comes.

Mr. Hattersley : My right hon. and learned Friend is right that the time to debate these measures is when the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill comes before the House, but I should be remiss in my duty if I did not remind him and the House that these proposals were originally an inherent part of the Bill. They have been removed from it, and the Home Secretary was kind an generous enough to say that this was because of reservations about the changes. They have now been tagged on to a different Bill. The existence of these proposals, connected with a different Bill, do not justify our voting against this Bill today, but I would be wrong not to say that the Government were mistaken to remove them from this Bill and try to bring them in--if I dare describe the other place in this way--through the back door, in a different measure. As I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend would wish, we shall oppose those changes when they come before us.

The Home Secretary said that these changes will apply to a category of offences, but the important point is that the changes would not have been brought in at all had it

Column 902

not been for this Bill. I become worried when changes, no matter how wide in their application, are brought in with a narrow purpose in mind. That is how the Government are proceeding. It would have been far better had these changes been dropped altogether. When they are proposed, we shall resist them. I believe that the other place will fight strongly against the changes when it discovers that they are related to this Bill. I have no doubt that the Bill is inherently better without these measures. In terms of the speech that I made on 12 December, the Bill is redeemed without them.

As there are no changes in law other than the one point on the committal procedures, and as I believe in principle that it is right to proceed, I shall vote in favour of the Bill as a demonstration of our abiding revulsion at the crimes to which it relates. I shall vote in favour, worried about the way that the prurient part of our press will treat the trials that may follow and conscious that pre-trial publicity, the age of the potential defendants and the antiquity of the evidence may make prosecution impossible. Above all, I shall vote in favour in the hope that, this final step having been taken, we can put the horrors to which the Bill relates behind us once and for all.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any intimation that the Government wish the Committee stage of the Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House? If not, would you be prepared to take a manuscript amendment to that effect at 10 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker : That may be moved at the conclusion of the debate if the hon. Gentleman so wishes.

4.27 pm

Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion) : I was never called to the Bar. Although I had some dinners and paid my subscription to the Inner Temple, Hitler interfered with the process. So I must leave it to hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House to deal with the complicated question whether fair trials would be possible, and with all the complicated rules of evidence.

I was deeply moved by the remarkable letter that Lord Shawcross wrote to The Times last Saturday. He explained, as one of the great protagonists of war crime trials, how, by 1948, the House was sickened by the continuing process and, with the agreement of both parties, came to the conclusion that a sponge must be drawn across the list and that we should no longer be responsible for instigating war crime trials in Germany, which at that time we still governed. Because the allied powers were governing Germany, the war crime tribunals took place. Normally, it would have been left to the defeated country to try its own people, but, together with the Americans, the Russians and the French, we were governing Germany, so we had no choice except to find our own method to deal with those who had committed appalling outrages.

Mr. Rees : On 12 December, the Home Secretary gave a different version of the events to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. He said :

"the decision was made not to proceed with war crimes trials in the British -occupied zone. We are not talking about that. No decision was ever made by a British Government that there should be an end to all war crimes trials, least of all that

Column 903

there should be an exemption from prosecution for all time for people resident in this country."--[ Official Report, 12 December 1989 : Vol. 163 c. 889.]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that the decision was taken in the British zone and not here. The matter should be clarified, because it is extremely important in terms of the way in which hon. Members vote this evening.

Mr. Amery : The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Lord Shawcross was the Attorney-General at the time and the question of prosecution rested with him as much as, if not more than, with the Home Secretary. It is true that, in deciding not to prosecute any further in the British zone, and therefore, presumably, Britain itself, we left it open to other countries--France, Israel and others--to pursue their own prosecutions in defence of their citizens who had suffered. That was legitimate, and that pursuit of prosecutions continues.

When it was alleged that President Waldheim might have taken part in the shooting of British prisoners, we instituted an inquiry immediately. The result was negative. That seemed to be perfectly all right.

Mr. Robert Boscawen (Somerset and Frome) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Amery : We must have regard to the background. Nothing can excuse the outrages committed by the individuals to whom the Hetherington report points. We do not know who they were, but we must remember what happened in the Ukraine and the Baltic states, and in the past few months those events have become much clearer. Young people in the Baltic states were brought up to believe that Communism was the anti-Christ. In the Ukraine there were fierce fights at the time of the Bolshevik revolution and thereafter. Appalling atrocities were committed by those who served the Nazis and by those who served the Soviet Union.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has referred to the 1957 legislation, but I am not sure what its validity is. It seems that it was designed to catch crimes committed after the relevant clause was introduced. Appalling things were done by the Soviet forces in the Baltic states when they took them over from Hitler and then when they recovered them. These matters must be in our minds, and we are much aware of them because of recent events. I join the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in being concerned about the selectivity of the Bill. It appears to apply only to crimes committed in German-occupied territory or in Germany. There were, however, many appalling atrocities committed during or before German occupation, and later, in other parts of the world, before 1957.

Mr. Archer : I do not dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's proposition that appalling crimes were committed in Russian-occupied territory, but is there any reason to think that any of the perpetrators are living in this country?

Mr. Amery : I suspect that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, or his predecessor, were quite ignorant four or five years ago whether anyone was living in Britain who could be indicted. There may be someone

Column 904

in that position, and I would not be surprised if there is more than one. I do not know whether the 1957 legislation would necessarily catch them. Crimes of the greatest enormity have been committed in eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and China. That can be said also of Uganda and of Argentina, where the dirty war was fought. Who can say that no one responsible for such crimes has arrived in this country, become a resident here and acquired British nationality after five years?

I do not know where this process will stop. What we are debating is what might be called unfinished business at the war crimes trials, which we decided in this place to stop in 1948. Do we want to inherit endless vendettas over what has happened in other countries?

Mr. Waddington : I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but he is repeating the error that he committed a short time ago. There was no decision by the House to stop war crimes trials. All that was decided was that there should be no more war crimes trials in the British zone in occupied Germany.

Mr. Amery : The fact that we decided not to pursue those crimes in occupied Germany makes it seem pretty peculiar that we should try to restart 45 years later the unfinished business of that period. Where would all that stop? Are we to import into Britain arguments about crimes that may or may not have been committed in other countries? It is not clear whether the 1957 decisions would cover all them. There may be people from Cambodia, or even China, who would qualify as British citizens-- [Interruption.] They might become British citizens ; why not?

I belong to the diminishing band of hon. Members who fought in the last war, and I think that most of us tend to be more tolerant than others about the things that were done in that war. I was associated--although I hope in no sense guilty--with resistance movements that perpetrated many appalling actions ; the massacre of the Chetniks by Tito's forces is only one case in point. Are we going to revive all that? That happened while the war was virtually still in progres.

There is the question of how far obeying orders is a defence. The other day, a distinguished former hon. Member, Mr. Nigel Nicholson, told of the horrors that he experienced when he was under orders to push people back-- Chetniks and Russians--to certain death.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : I find it difficult to understand how the right hon. Gentleman can refer to the wholesale slaughter of people who were playing no part in the war as actions committed as part of that war. Is he really saying that Auschwitz was part of the last war? Was it not, rather, the action of a misguided, criminal and demented political regime?

Mr. Amery : I made two points. I talked about the people who were sent back to certain death from Carinthia, including women and children, and were killed on the spot to avoid any evidence. No one could say that they were active participants. I also referred to obeying orders as a defence. It is a questionable area.

I spent much of the war connected with eastern Europe, where atrocities were committed by both sides--by the Ustashi, by Tito's people, and, I dare say, by the Chetniks. I had great fears recently : I never dreamed that I would see

Column 905

the liberation of eastern Europe, but it has happened, so far without the return to the retribution and violence that I had feared and almost expected.

The other day I was in Romania and was received by President Iliescu who, surprisingly, began our conversation by apologising for the fact that Ceausescu and his wife had been executed without a proper trial. It is almost miraculous that the communist system is being dismantled without lynching or murder. At this juncture, when Baltic states and the Ukraine are in our minds and front-page news, I ask myself whether we would be wise to reopen old wounds and to proceed with this legislation. I think not.

I am no lawyer, but I want to end by quoting these words of Lord Shawcross :

"In my own opinion, as a once mere practising lawyer, the prosecutions which are contemplated by the Bill now before Parliament would violate the basic principles of British justice and law." 4.39 pm

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : I have always been a strong advocate of bringing Nazi war criminals to justice, no matter how many years after the atrocities were carried out. I was delighted when, a few years ago, Barbie was put on a plane to France. Having tabled questions about him, I was glad that he was about to be tried. It was not argued that, because of his advanced age, or because of the number of years since the atrocities had been committed in wartime occupied France, he should not be tried. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

I am one of those who actively campaigned in this House for Rauff, one of the most notorious SS killers, then living in Chile, to be deported to West Germany. Before the gas ovens were brought into use, Rauff was responsible for the system of mass killing whereby men, women and children were put into vans that were then filled with exhaust fumes. As was made clear in a report in The Daily Telegraph, Rauff was living in Chile under his own name, which was even apparently listed in the telephone directory. I took the view with others that this notorious killer should certainly be brought to justice, and I am glad that there was a campaign to that end. During the last year of Rauff's life in Chile, the spotlight was turned on him. A British television crew went out to make a film for "World in Action". A number of campaigners against Nazi atrocities demonstrated outside his house. Should the view have been taken that, because he was a very elderly man in ill health, soon to die, he should be left in peace for the last months of his life? My view, of course, was that he should never have been allowed to live in freedom and that he should have been brought to justice after the war. One of my criticisms of the position adopted after the war is that the pledge given by the British Government and other allied Governments that all those held responsible for Nazi crimes against humanity would be brought to justice was never really implemented after the first year or so. I am old enough to remember reports of the Nuremberg proceedings. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr Amery) agrees that it was absolutely right that all the Nazi leaders who survived should be brought to justice. Indeed, I considered some of the Nuremberg sentences to have been too lenient.

Column 906

That, of course, is a personal view--I may be wrong. Perhaps it was better that death sentences should not have been passed in a number of cases.

What I find very disturbing--and what was disturbing at the time--is that, once the Nuremberg trials were over and a few more proceedings had taken place, the cold war started, and by 1949-50 there was no longer enthusiasm for such trials, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware. Many of the people who had carried out monstrous crimes and atrocities during the Nazi era were allowed to go scot free. Only as a result of public opinion since the 1960s has the Federal Republic of Germany initiated proceedings against people alleged to be Nazi war criminals. We all know that such proceedings have always been highly unpopular in West Germany.

I am certainly critical of many aspects of Israeli Government policy, but I believe that the Israeli kidnapping of Eichmann was perfectly justified. If the alternative had been that Eichmann might, like Rauff, go free for the rest of his life, the Israeli action was correct. I also happen to believe- -although I may be in a minority here--that the Israeli decision that Eichmann, having been found guilty of some of the worst crimes ever committed, should be sentenced to death, even though Israel does not otherwise have the death penalty, was right. I am pleased that he was hanged--and I say so as someone who has constantly argued against the death penalty and who, rather than change his mind, would be prepared to lose his seat in this House. This shows that, in respect of such cases, one cannot be totally consistent. There are exceptions, and I believe that the Eichmaan case was such an exception.

I accept, however, that in the case of the alleged war criminals with whom this Bill is intended to deal, matters are not so clear-cut. There is the question whether it is appropriate that legislation should be introduced at all. A number of right hon. and hon. Members take the perfectly legitimate view--I may not agree with it, but it is perfectly legitimate--that no action should be taken. I do not for one moment accept that those who argue against this Bill are in the same category as the person who, in a letter in The Daily Telegraph today, argues that such Nazi atrocities never took place. I accept that right hon. and hon. Members who oppose the Bill do not in any way doubt that such atrocities did occur and that those who argue otherwise are acting as apologists for the Nazi regime.

Mr. Cormack : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many of us who have grave reservations about the Bill oppose it for a variety of reasons? One of the reasons is our fear that it will fan the flames of anti-semitism.

Mr. Winnick : My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) dealt with that matter the last time this subject was debated. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) is consistent in his opposition to all forms of racism, including anti- semitism. I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West on a number of issues, but I think that he was absolutely right that those who want to be anti-semitic do not need any encouragement.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : It is very important that we try to educate people not to look at this as a racist issue. From my own experience, I concede that the Jewish people suffered far more severely than did those

Column 907

of any other race, but I have an abiding memory. As a serving Royal Air Force man, I was sent to escort an RAF medical team to Belsen 24 hours after it had been liberated. I am still haunted by the sight of a Roman Catholic priest attempting to celebrate communion mass at a makeshift altar. I was struck by his peculiar behaviour. With one hand he was holding the elements, and with the other he was clinging to the altar--he dared not let go. On closer examination, I saw two of his fellow clergymen lying dead at his feet. They had died the previous day. I think that the matter should be put into context.

Mr. Winnick : The right hon. Gentleman's intervention is very useful and positive. It is perfectly true that, while the Jews were the main victims of the Nazis, there were many other victims who were far from being Jewish. Indeed, Nazi victims were of many nationalities. We are dealing with the question of Nazi war criminals, but anyone who has read about Nazi Germany knows that many politicians--communists, socialists, others on the left, and some conservatives--who certainly were not Jewish were put to death in the concentration camps and other places which were in existence almost from the very moment that Hitler took power in 1933.

I accept that, in all the cicumstances, it probably would not be right to invoke deportation, but, in so far as vetting procedures took place, some of the people whose presence is the reason for the introduction of this Bill clearly lied to get into the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, for all the reasons that were put forward by the Home Secretary, I do not accept that it would be appropriate to invoke deportation procedures. Most, if not all, of the people concerned had lived here for many years before any allegations of atrocities against them arose. Perhaps that is an argument, for what it is worth, for no action being taken.

Hon. Members have asked about the suspects' age and possible ill health, and whether any prosecutions would be brought. Australia has passed similar legislation, but from my reading of the report, I understand that no war crimes charges have yet been brought in that country.

Mr. Archer : Yes, they have.

Mr. Winnick : My right hon. and learned Friend says that charges have been brought in Australia ; that must have been done since the publication of the report.

If, because of a defendant's ill health, lawyers believe that he should not be brought to court, the judge could make a decision accordingly. In my view, it would be perfectly right for him to do so.

Mr. Gorst : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we now have information that was not available during the 40 years since the crimes were committed, and that had such evidence been available before, it would have been incumbent upon us to do something? It is only in recent months that sufficient evidence has become available. Mr. Winnick : I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall deal with his point when I conclude.

I accept that, if judicial proceedings are brought against people who are very elderly or in ill health, there could be, if not anti-semitism--I dealt with that earlier--a certain

Column 908

amount of misplaced sympathy which would be counterproductive. We shall have to take that possibility on board when deciding how to vote tonight.

I accept that there are arguments for not proceeding with the Bill. I hope that I have made clear that the matter is not as clear-cut as the arguments concerning Nuremberg, Eichmann or Rauff. However, there are also strong arguments for carrying the Bill into law. In weighing up the pros and cons of the Bill, we should not overlook the allegations of deliberate and systematic mass murder of civilians. It is not good enough for the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion to argue that crimes were committed on both sides. There was a difference between the two sides, and no one knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman, who has a very distinguished war record and who is well aware of some of the activities that were undertaken.

In that respect, the right hon. Gentleman is like the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), a former leader of the Conservative party, who I understand will be speaking and voting against the Bill, and whose own war record is beyond question. Those two right hon. Gentlemen know better than almost anyone else the difference between the two sides-- between the side that was responsible for the aggression in the first place and for committing the most terrible atrocities, and the side that took up arms against fascism and the rest.

At the same time, no one would argue that the resistance in occupied Europe has a spotless record. Under the circumstances, it is unlikely to do so. However, it was Nazi policy almost since the beginning of the war--[ Hon. Members-- : "Before the war."]--and even before the war, to exterminate Jews and others. That was certainly Nazi policy following the conference early in January 1942, when it was decided not simply to punish Jews and others--not that they deserved any punishment, of course--but physically to liquidate them from the face of the earth.

The policy of the Nazis was of systematic and deliberate mass murder. They showed no mercy to men, women or children. Atrocities occurred on an almost daily basis in parts of the Soviet Union that were occupied by the Nazis. I do not want to invoke unnecessary emotion, but mothers with their babies in their arms pleaded with SS killers at least to spare their babies. They were shown no such mercy. Those are the sort of crimes with which the Bill seeks to deal, and we cannot get away from them. We cannot say simply, "It was unfortunate, but war is war, and sometimes crimes were comitted." The crimes committed by the Nazis were of a completely different character, and that was recognised at Nuremberg.

After the most exhaustive inquiries, the report on which the Bill is based reached a conclusion, on the evidence available, in respect of three people who came to the United Kingdom after the second world war and took out British citizenship. It states in paragraph 9.10 that the evidence available shows that

"there would be a realistic prospect of conviction for murder." How can we say now that we have no interest in bringing those three prosecutions? If the evidence had not come to light, if there had not been public pressure, and if the report had not been produced, we might be able to say that many years have elapsed, many changes have occurred in Europe, and it is too late to start dealing with those responsible for war crimes who now live in the United Kingdom.

Column 909

However, the matter is before us, and we must make a decision one way or the other. In view of the evidence, we have no alternative but to pass the Bill into legislation. If that is done, as always it will be up to the judicial authorities--fortunately, not this House--to decide whether charges should be brought against the individuals concerned.

In enacting such legislation, we would be following in the footsteps of other democracies, such as Canada, Australia and the United States. I always thought that America had a pretty sorry record in respect of war criminals, showing little interest once Nuremburg was over. Far too many people were allowed to enter the United States who clearly were involved in mass murder and other crimes. However, in the past five years or so--rather late in the day, but better late than never--the United States has begun to act properly and has invoked the kind of deportation procedures which, as I have already explained, I would not like to be introduced in this country. Nevertheless, America has taken action. We should act, too, but in a different way--like Canada and Australia.

This is a very sorry business. It is not the kind of issue that many right hon. and hon. Members like to be brought before the House, but every one of us must make a decision, on a free vote. For all the reasons that I have given, I believe that it is right and proper to carry the Second Reading, to examine the matter in detail in Committee and to allow the legislation to pass accordingly. 4.56 pm

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) : Over the past three years, since the Simon Wiesenthal Centre first interested itself in the possibility of pursuing alleged war criminals in Britain, I have done my best to oppose the very idea and, in this House and elsewhere, to make the case against the purpose of the Bill.

I have done so not because I have any connection with any particular factor in the controversy. I myself served in the Royal Air Force during the war, and I am not unaware of the scale of the atrocities that were committed. I accept that fearful atrocities were committed by all sides. What the Jews called the holocaust certainly occurred, and it affected millions of people --but millions of others were also affected. The criminals were not restricted to the so-called Nazis but existed on all sides, including the allied side. One can accept all that and still say that the purpose of the Bill is wrong, for two reasons. In principle, we ought not to delve back into history, to revive the grim, terrible, cruel stories of the last war, in which many, many people suffered.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : I was too young to fight in the war, but I am not too young to realise that the crimes in question were unique in their enormity. They were not committed in the heat of battle. No one denies that things happen on the battlefield which honourable people would, in the coolness of afterthought, regret. We are talking of something that started in the late 1930s--a holocaust. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to read Martin Gilbert's book on the holocaust.

It is not a matter of saying, "We all did naughty things." I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr.

Column 910

Stanbrook) not to belittle the carnage of the holocaust by saying that we all did things that we regret. It is not a matter of regret but of record that a great evil took place for which no one responsible should ever be forgiven--however old, however ancient, or however decrepit they may be.

Mr. Stanbrook : My hon. Friend's age and experience do not encompass all the terrible things that have happened in the past 50 years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, it is not for us to distinguish between the scale of the terror inflicted in any sector of the war or in any region. Of course, the justification given is that the crimes that we are discussing were particularly horrible, but we are not merely dealing with a particular set of atrocities. We should be considering, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) attempted to say, all the frightfulness against mankind and all crimes against humanity.

Therefore, if we are to deal with the principle properly, there should be jurisdiction in this country to try all such crimes wherever and whenever they were committed, by anyone who comes within the jurisdiction of--

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Stanbrook : No.

There should be such jurisdiction for courts in this country.

Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Stanbrook : I give way to the Father of the House.

Sir Bernard Braine : In his earlier remarks, my hon. Friend referred to crimes being committed by both sides, and he blurred the distinction between those and the crimes which are the subject of the Hetherington- Chalmers report, with which the Bill is concerned, which were crimes of great enormity. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), I am old enough to know what went on, and to remember that members of the armed forces were horrified at the intelligence that was reaching us about the appalling crimes which were being committed, not merely in the concentration camps or during the holocaust, but against men, women and children--unarmed, defenceless civilians--all over German- occupied Europe. Before he goes any further, will he make a clear distinction between what happens in the heat of battle and the calculated, diabolical cruelty which characterised the enemy against whom we were fighting?

Mr. Stanbrook : Calculated and diabolical cruelty has been inflicted on other people. I am not here to distinguish any particular period of time or part of the world--[ Hon. Members :-- "Why not?"] Will hon. Gentlemen allow me to make my speech?

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Stanbrook : I do not propose to give way.

We are talking about that principle, so the question is whether we would achieve any good by reviving jurisdiction in British courts after nearly 50 years to try alleged war criminals.

Column 911

I suggest that, in view of the present state of world affairs, when peace and co-operation are watchwords, we should not be reviving thoughts of hatred, cruelty and revenge. That is what we shall be doing by instituting crimes under the Bill.

I do not believe that we advance the cause of humanity one iota by passing a Bill of this kind. I know that many hon. Members do not agree with me, that they are satisfied that the principle justifies the attempt but the practice--the second side of the equation--is more impelling to me than the principle behind the argument. The first of the acts which constituted war crimes covered by the Bill occurred in 1941, which means that, next year, 50 years will have passed since it was committed.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Stanbrook : No, I am sorry.

It is that interval of 50 years and its implications which must not be disregarded when we discuss whether we should institute war crimes trials twice. The 50-year interval affects the whole concept, especially the detailed preparation and prosecution of the crimes. We have been told that all that is necessary is to extend the jurisdiction of British courts. That means that this is retrospective criminal legislation, and it is selective criminal legislation. It bears all the hallmarks of what British lawyers would normally regard with contempt. We are changing the law to enable prosecutions to take place.

I acknowledge what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said about the slight adjustments that the Government propose compared with the Hetherington inquiry report, which may enable some people to accept that a fair trial could be provided. However, with my small legal experience--I have defended and prosecuted murderers and I have appeared in many extradition cases for both requested and requesting countries--I believe that there is no possibility of the individuals affected by the Bill being given a fair trial or having the slightest opportunity of one.

[Interruption.] When one considers that the whole apparatus of British law is being adjusted to enable the prosecution of three elderly men who are resident in this country, one of whom is sick and is unlikely to stand trial, then we must admit that we are predetermining the verdict.

Consider the changes to be made to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which was passed when the powers-that-be were considering the possibility of instituting war crimes trials under legislation which would shortly be brought before the House. Those changes will target the luckless individuals who will be brought to court under the legislation. Taking evidence on commission in Europe ignores the fact that in practise the defendant will not be able to cross-examine witnesses ; the witness will not be seen and will not give oral testimony before a jury in London, but that evidence will be relied upon.

I listened to what my right hon. and learned Friend said about receiving evidence from persons who are now abroad. I am glad that this will not be the subject of new legislation. He says that it will rest upon the existing rules, under which the evidence of a person who has died may not be received unless the judge is satisfied that there is no danger of an injustice being committed. It is not for us to

Column 912

leave that to the judges. After 50 years, we ought to be taking that decision. Are we legislating for justice or are we legislating for a possibility of injustice? I do not have to make a case for anything but the possibility of injustice because everyone knows that there is a great possibility of injustice as a result of the admission of that kind of evidence.

Mr. Cormack : Does my hon. Friend accept, as I do, that if these people are guilty of such terrible crimes, there is an ultimate justice from which they cannot escape?

Mr. Stanbrook : Yes. When this matter was previously considered, I ventured to make that point.

The accused persons--they are not guilty persons, as many people say ; they are, under our law, innocent persons--will be threatened with a charge under the Bill when it becomes an Act. They are elderly people who will eventually have to face their maker. God reserves His judgment for those who have committed crimes during their lifetime, whatever we in this place or whatever the British courts may wish to do to them.

The practical difficulty that will arise out of trials instituted under the Bill, if it becomes an Act, is that these offences were committed 1,000 or 2,000 miles away in wartime conditions, by and among the people whose language and customs were quite different from our own. It would be very difficult to translate all that in such a way as to enable a British jury to decide dispassionately the question of guilt or innocence. The defendants will not have the opportunity to travel to Russia to gather evidence on their behalf.

Mr. Alex Carlile : Why not?

Mr. Stanbrook : They will not be allowed to travel freely in Russia. Anyone who imagines that they would be allowed to do so--

Mr. Carlile : Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Stanbrook : No, I do not intend to give way.

Mr. Carlile : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it proper for an hon. Member to misrepresent the contents of a Bill that is before the House which makes it absolutely clear that legal aid will be available to all defendants?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : The hon. and learned Gentleman will be seeking later to catch my eye. I am sure that he can make that point during his speech, if he is successful.

Mr. Stanbrook : I am sorry that a member of the legal profession should use such a bogus point of order to interrupt another hon. Member. We all know that in practice, it would not be possible either for the defendants' concerned or for anyone representing them to travel freely in Russia to do the sort of things that the Hetherington inquiry did, at great expense. It had teams of investigators and the KGB to assist it.

Anyone who is considering applying the normal principles of British law to a crime applies them to contemporary events. The chances of obtaining evidence--of witnesses being summoned, of their speaking English--are slim, and all the rules of law and procedure that

Next Section

Home Page