I do not wish unduly to prolong the discussion on this amendment. Last night I made the points that I wished to make in favour of the amendment. I do not now want to repeat those points again; but I do wish to make a comment upon one remark that the Minister rather dramatically made last night in the House when he made his oral testimony bequeathing his advice to whatever successor would be in his office in this country during a future war.
He stated that he would as his last will and political testament bequeath to that Minister the direction that he should employ drastic methods to deal with black marketeers and completely overlook whatever ordinary courts would be in existence at that time. I want, for whatever portion of posterity may take any interest in any remarks I have to make, to register my strong disagreement with the sentiments expounded in the Minister's last will and political testament. I think it is a very bad thing for any country to cast aspersions upon the administration of justice through the ordinary courts. Last night I stated that the Minister, in my view, in the remarks he made really passed a vote of censure on the ordinary courts of this country, and he censured in particular a very large number of people who were appointed to judicial office by his own Government in the last six years.
I take the opposite view. I take the view, and express it again strongly, that our courts have operated well and efficiently and impartially in the last five or six years. I have protested again and again in this House against the policy of appointing temporary district justices. But, even in reference to these, I will say here publicly that, although I take objection in principle to the appointment of these temporary district justices, they have to the best of my belief acted impartially, properly and efficiently. I find no evidence whatever that, during the period of six years, our courts, in reference to the enforcement of the Orders of the Government or of any Minister made under the Emergency Powers Act, have not acted in the way they ought to have acted. Implicit in the statements of the Minister is the suggestion that, because a Department or an official thinks that an individual has committed an offence, every judicial tribunal must give effect to that whether the evidence justified conviction or not.
In other words, the Minister wants some tribunal which will in all cases convict irrespective of what the evidence may be. They want somebody who will do the job and do it not in the way of the ordinary process of law. I object to that principle, whether it is stated expressly or nakedly, as I have stated it, or whether it is stated in the words the Minister has stated it, carrying that implied suggestion. It is an extremely bad principle for any Government to pass over the administration of justice carried out by the constitutional courts.
I repeat what I said last night, that the courts of justice in this country, in reference to all ordinary matters, have been in the last six years and still are effectively working. There is no evidence from which it can be stated that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order in reference to Orders under the Emergency Powers Act. The Minister agreed with me last night that not more than 1 per cent. of all cases under the Emergency Powers Orders came before these Military Tribunals, but he drew from that amazing set of facts an ordinary deduction: that were it not for the Special Military Courts administering criminal cases brought before them under the Emergency Powers Orders it would not have been possible for him to carry out his rationing scheme. I totally fail to follow that argument. Ninety-nine per cent. at least of all cases under the Emergency Powers Act, including black-marketing cases, came before the ordinary courts. Only 1 per cent. at the outside came before the Military Tribunal. How can it be suggested from that state of facts, particularly in view of the Minister's perhaps justifiable boast that this country had the best record for rationing of any country in the world, that the ordinary courts have failed effectively to administer justice and preserve public peace and order?
The setting up of extraordinary tribunals should only be resorted to in the very last resort. During the time when the administration of justice in this country was brought to a standstill in reference to one particular aspect only of the activities of certain illegal bodies, it was necessary to set up a particular type of court, but only for that purpose. I said last night that these courts have a value. Their value is strictly confined in my view, and I submit to the House it is the proper view, to hearing cases of, and I hope deterring, the commission of crimes of violence against the State by armed bodies or by illegal organisations subversive to the State. That is the only value of these extraordinary courts. If other cases that could properly be heard by the ordinary courts are brought before these tribunals, I repeat what I said last night, that the effect will be to create a spurious sympathy in the public mind with the victims of the decisions of these courts or the persons brought before them, and the value of these courts for the purpose for which they ought to exist solely will be undermined.
I do submit to the Minister in all seriousness that he ought to resolve firmly that he will not come to an understanding with the Attorney-General like the understanding, which in my view was an illegal understanding, with the Attorney-General of the time during the last six years in reference to offences under the Emergency Powers Acts; but that he will at least exercise the greatest possible control over cases that will be sent under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, to any court other than the ordinary courts of the country.
