Page 247
Printed for the Cabinet. July 1952
CONFIDENTIAL
CABINET OFFICE
Copy No. 72
C. (52) 248
RECORD COPY
21st July 1952
CABINET
AMNESTY FOR DESERTERS
MEMORANDUM BY THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE
From time to time there has been pressure in Parliament and elsewhere in favour of a general amnesty for deserters from the Armed Forces, particularly for men who deserted before and during the last war. It has been suggested that it would be appropriate to grant an amnesty as a feature in the Coronation year. I am therefore, at the Prime Minister's request, bringing the matter before the Cabinet for decision.
2. The arguments in favour of an amnesty are as follows:-
(a) There are at present nominally about 15,000 deserters from the Armed Forces still at large but the true figure, owing to the large proportion of war-time deserters who have returned to their homes in the Republic of Ireland, while others have since died or re-enlisted, may be no more than about 6,000. Whatever the true figure may be, it is a serious matter that so many thousands of men should be living the life of outlaws, perhaps under assumed names and with false ration books, with a charge hanging over their heads.
(b) The tracing and punishing of deserters is extremely troublesome and serves no useful purpose since the men, when traced, are likely to be useless to the Forces and merely a liability.
(c) A similar amnesty was declared in 1922, four years after the First World War. Seven years have now elapsed since the end of the Second World War and Canada, Australia and South Africa have already given an amnesty for their war-time deserters.
(d) The Accession and Coronation of the new Sovereign would be an appro-
priate time to choose for an act of clemency.
3. I have consulted my Service colleagues and find that they are unanimously opposed to the grant of any general amnesty. Their principal reasons are as follows:
(a) An amnesty would imply that desertion is a crime which can secure con- donation if the deserter evades arrest for long enough. This would have a bad effect on our forces while we are actively engaged in operations in Korea and Malaya, and might increase the current rate of desertion. (b) It is illogical that the offence of desertion which, when committed in war- time is a more serious and dangerous offence than most civil crimes, should be singled out from other crimes for an amnesty.
(c) It is significant that the countries which have granted an amnesty in respect of the last war (South Africa, Australia and Canada) have no system of compulsory peace-time service. In the United States and New Zealand, where such a system is in force, no amnesty has been granted. If desertion came to be regarded as an offence which was likely to carry no penalty if those who deserted could evade detection for a few years, the effect on our peace-time scheme of national service might well be Page 24i8$253
Page 247
42606
262
2
Page 248 253
Page 248ty would place deserters who surrender now in more favourable
position than those who gave themselves up in response to the late Government's appeal in 1947 and have been punished. This would be unfair to those who surrendered earlier, as well as to those who have served loyally throughout.
(e) Most deserters are now established in civil life, either in the Republic of Ireland or under assumed names. It is unlikely that many would come forward were an amnesty granted to those who confessed.
4. The late Government considered the matter, and on 24th May, 1950, the then Minister of Defence announced that the Government had decided against any kind of general amnesty.
5. While I am personally attracted to the idea of an amnesty as a gesture at the time of Her Majesty's Coronation, I feel that the military arguments against it are overwhelming, so long as we have national service in peace-time.
6. I invite the views of my colleagues on this question.
Ministry of Defence, S.W. I,
21st July, 1952.