Smashing a Nut
rr 110SE who deliberately break the law in sup- port of causes not accepted by the majority of their fellow-citizens in a democracy must ex- pect to take the consequences. Nevertheless, there are a number of issues directly involved in the case of the members of the Committee of 100, before considering the wider implications of the trial. On the narrowest front of all is the question of the admissibility of the evidence the defence wished to call. This was designed to show, in their submission, that their action was not, as the charge alleged, prejudicial to the safety of the State, but on the contrary beneficial there- here- to. All such evidence was ruled out, after a great deal of tortuous and unconvincing argUment by the Attorney-General as to the difference in meaning between 'intent' and 'purpose,' and one curious intervention by the judge. The defence counsel, arguing that the accused, if they had reasonable cause to believe that what they were doing was beneficial to the State, ought to be able to call witnesses to support this belief, was met by the judge saying, 'I think it is going to lead to very odd results. Another Committee of 100 might take the view that it was bene- ficial to the country to abolish the Army. . . They might indeed; but the purpose of the court, surely, is to test whether they were right or not— whether, in other words, their action was bene- ficial or prejudicial. The fact that allowing them to defend themselves as they saw fit might 'lead to some very odd results' does nut seem a wholly convincing argument for ruling virtually the whole of their defence out of order.
This point, however, can presumably be tested in the Court of Criminal Appeal. There are other considerations involved in the trial. The first is the left-handed way in which the prosecution was launched (not to say conducted). To use the im- mense and sinister majesty of the Official Secrets Act against people who, it is worth remember- ing, never got inside the air base at Wethersfield at all, and who certainly would not have recog- nised an Official Secret if they had, is to take a sledgehammer to a nut. The sentence of eighteen monthS' imprisonment seems out of all propor- tion to the offence actually committed, particu- larly in view of the jury's recommendation to leniency.
But the wider implications of the case should not go unnoticed. It may well have given a fillip to the waning cause of unilateralism in this•country. It has attracted sympathy even among those who disagree violently with the views of the prisoners. And those who believe that it will deter others from similar actions should note that the police stations were promptly besieged after the trial by other members and supporters of the Committee of 100 clamouring to be arrested. It may create, finally, both here and abroad, a feeling 'Very interesting, Dr. Kaldor. We're thinking of trying it.' that the Government is getting panicky about opposition to its policies.
On the other side of the same coin, it should be noted that another man has recently been im- prisoned for three months for writing 'Keep Britain Great; Keep Britain White' on Under- ground station posters. It is to be hoped that those already preparing their multiple letters to the Times will spare a thought for another man sonie‘N hat sternly sentenced for his actions in support of his beliefs, even though his beliefs are rather less fashionable than those of the Com- mittee of 100. As for the prisoners, they will have time to reflect on many things, but it is to be feared that they will not include in their reflec- tions the thought that there are parts of the world where, for actions such as theirs, they would not have had a trial in open court, with the possibility of appeal from the verdict, but any- thing up to and including a bullet in the back,-of the neck in a cellar, and no questions asked. Also that it is to see that they can go on being tried in our way that the Wethersfield base exists.
Previous page
