CAB38-23 — Page 13

Page 13

Page 13

تھے الحالية من المهرة

COLONEL SEELY referred to section 6 of "The Official Secrets Act, 1911."

“Any person who is found committing an offence under this Act, whether that offence is a felony or not, or who is reasonably suspected of having committed, or having attempted to commit, or being about to commit, such an offence, may be apprehended and detained in the same manner as a person who is committing a felony."

This section must be read with section 1, sub-section (2)

"On a prosecution under this section, it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, or his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State;

Section 1, sub-section (1), of the Act made the offence of approaching, being in the neighbourhood of or entering a prohibited place, a felony. It was justifiable to take all possible means to prevent the commission of a felony, and, therefore, in default of other means, to shoot.

THE PRIME MINISTER said that the law could not be laid down in such absolute terms. In certain circumstances it was lawful to shoot a burglar, but he would be sorry to say that it could be held to be so in all cases of felony. Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act only gave power to apprehend and detain. That was a very different thing from shooting at an offender. He did not say that power should not be taken to shoot, but he thought, and the Lord Chancellor appeared to agree with him, that that power was not given by the Bill as drafted. This was a serious matter, and direct power should be taken in very clear terms. The Sub-Committee should reconsider the Bill, and strengthen it.

MR. HARCOURT said that similar legislation would be necessary at Malta and Gibraltar, but he presumed that it would be better to wait to introduce it at those places until after it had been passed at home.

COLONEL SEELY agreed. There was no airship at present anywhere within reach of those places. Continuing, he asked whether he might take it that the Committee agreed that the danger existed, and that legislation on these lines was necessary.

THE PRIME MINISTER said that there was undoubtedly a case for legislation.

(Conclusion.)

The Bill to amend the Aerial Navigation Act, 1911, to be re-drafted. The direct powers required to be taken in explicit terms.

IV. ARMAMENT OF DEFENDED PORTS.

PROVISION OF LONG RANGE GUNS. (C.I.D. Paper 95-C.)

COLONEL SEELY said that the War Office were ready to provide guns of longer range for the primary armament of defended ports, if the Admiralty thought it necessary.

LORD HALDANE said that this was an old subject of discussion. The Master- General of the Ordnance had always wished to mount these guns. He had gone into this question when he was at the War Office, and had consulted Sir Arthur Wilson, who was then at the Admiralty, Sir Arthur had expressed a strong view that nothing larger than a 9-2-inch gun was necessary.

SIR ARTHUR WILSON said that he still adhered to that opinion. If a vessel lay off and bombarded at long range, the best weapon to deal with her would be a sub- marine. Besides, the number of days on which it was possible to see anything at these extreme ranges was limited.

i

Page 13

Page 13

Page 13