Personal Case

Oral Answers to Questions — Royal Air Force – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 27th November 1946.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Denis Pritt Mr Denis Pritt , Hammersmith North 12:00 am, 27th November 1946

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that all reviewing authorities up to and including his Department have reviewed or purported to have reviewed the conviction and sentence of L.A.C. Cymbalist on a defective record wherein most of the evidence of Cymbalist himself appeared in the form of answers only, without any indication of the questions to which the answers were given; and if he will now have the case reviewed on proper materials.

Photo of Mr Geoffrey De Freitas Mr Geoffrey De Freitas , Nottingham Central

If Mr. Cymbalist considers that the review of his case was impaired by this omission in the record of his trial, it is open to him to submit a further petition which will receive the fullest consideration. Even if Mr. Cymbalist does not petition the case will. be reviewed.

Photo of Mr Denis Pritt Mr Denis Pritt , Hammersmith North

I am very grateful for that assurance, but can the hon. Gentleman tell us how it comes about that after the House and the country have been told that this case has been reviewed and, reviewed and found to be in order, the hop. Gentleman has to confess that the record is grossly defective?

Photo of Mr Geoffrey De Freitas Mr Geoffrey De Freitas , Nottingham Central

I confess there was an omission from the record, and I have nothing to add to the statement which I have made.

Photo of Mr Denis Pritt Mr Denis Pritt , Hammersmith North

How is it that the supposedly competent persons in the legal profession and outside of it, who have reviewed this thing stage by stage while the man concerned was sitting in prison, had not enough intelligence to realise that it was defective?

Photo of Mr Geoffrey De Freitas Mr Geoffrey De Freitas , Nottingham Central

There is no evidence that the reviewing authorities considered the legal effect of this defect, and that is why the case will be reviewed.