CO885-(13-15) — Page 561

Reference :-

C.O.885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

2

I remonstrated against being asked to sign my name under a parenthesis introduced by him.

He said it was right in Italian.

I considered I was somewhat browbeaten, and contented myself with offering to sign under the condition I have already quoted.

I was then referred to paragraph 585 Criminal Law, which gives a maximun punishment of three months for Contempt of Court.

I believe I was then awarded three days' detention.

I asked permission to state to the Court that it was not my wish to show any dis- respect to the Laws of Malta or to the representative of the law in that court, and I especially wished to say to the Maltese present that I had a respect for the law because I had heard that morning that a paper published in Malta had otherwise represented my

action.

But the Magistrate would not give me a bearing.

I was then taken charge of by the Superintendent of Police.

I take the opportunity of assuring H.E. that my sole reason for insisting on recording my remonstrance, in my own language, was that I object on principle to signing a document I don't understand.

I can respect laws, even when they contain what seems to me an injustice. Under the circumstances, I trust H.E. may use his prerogative to order my release.

J. L. HEWSON, Col. A.P.D.

The Secretary of State for War proposes to write to the Colonial Office in the following terms, or as amended :-

1. In the accompanying copy of a letter, which it is desired may be returned, the Commander-in-Chief, Malta, mentions that the incident of Colonel Hewson and the Malta Police Court has been reported to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

2. It appears to Lord Lansdowne that neither the action of the Governor, nor that of the Police Magistrate, can be justified. The Secretary of State for War understands that no one can be compelled in a British Court-whether in the United Kingdom, in-Malta, or elsewhere, to give evidence except in the language which he may himself elect to use, and it follows therefrom that no man en should be compelled in any British Colony to sign a deposition in any language which he does not understand.

3. When the Secretary of State for the Colonies has satisfied himself as to the soundness of this opinion, he will probably be good enough to have the Governor informed of the mistake he has made, and the Commander-in-Chief will then, under the direction of the Secretary of State for War, deal with the question of discipline as regards Colonel Hewson.

But before writing such letter in either form Lord Lansdowne desires the opinion of the Law Officers.

The Attorney and Solicitor-General are requested to advise accordingly.

Opinion.

We see no ground for blaming the Governor.

We think that the action of the Magistrate in imprisoning Colonel Hewson was quite unjustifiable.

In a Case (the Julia Davis) in the Appeal Court in the time of Baggallay, L.J.. a report of which cannot be found, a dictum is attributed to Cockburn, L.J., and quoted with approval by the Court, that a witness may elect to choose the language in which he will be examined, and the case of Atkins v. Palmer, 4 B and Ald. 377, has a bearing on the question at issue. There is no record in the Treasury Solicitor's Department of any case in which a Foreign witness has refused to sign his deposition in English on its being interpreted to him.

Colonel Hewson was willing to sign if he was allowed to add a note guarding against its being supposed that his signature vouched for a translation, of the correctness of which he knew nothing.

The 357th section imposes on the witness the duty of signing such a translation, but there is nothing in the Code to prevent the addition to the signature of such a note as Colonel Hewson desired to add. To require unqualified signature in such a case would be absurd, and we do not think that the Maltese law does require it.

Even if the Magistrate had been right in his view of section 357 it was clearly not a case for imprisonment.

Colonel Hewson treated the Court with perfect respect, and as his refusal was merely

3

on the ground that he could not vouch for a document of which he knew nothing, it was not a case for punishment; the Magistrate ought simply to have appended a note under section 357.

We suggest that the despatch should be re-drafted upon the lines of this opinion. We think that Colonel Hewson should be relieved from all consequences of a punishment which, in our opinion, ought never to have been inflicted.

We have, &c.,

Law Officers' Department,

June 21, 1898.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

}