Courts-Martial Appeal Court Before the LoRD CEIEF IUsncE, ML JusTIcE STREATFeLD and MR. JusncE HINCHCLFFE The COURT dismissed this appeal 'by Private Thomas Joseph Smith, aged 20, of the King's Regiment, against his conviction on July 2, 1958 by court martial at Verden, Germany, of tie murder of Private David sCreed, of the Gloucestershire Regiment, at Sennelage, Germany, Iast April, for which he had been sentenced to life imprisonment Mr. R. Bowen, Q.C., and Mr. H. K. Woolf appeared for the appellant; Mr. E. Garth Moore- for the Crown. JUDGMENT The LoaD CHIEF JusTicE, giving the judgment of the Court, said that in the view of the Court there were only two of the number of points taken, quite properly, by Mr. Bowen on behalf of the appellant which merited zonsideration. The first point was whether two alleged confessions given by the appellant were wrongly admitted in evidence. It was vital, because, in the absence of the evidence in those con- fessions, there would have been, at the end of the- prosecutionfs case, no evidence against the prisoner at alL The confessions arose in this way. The regimental sergeant major of the King's Regiment heard that there had been some stabbing. He put his company on parade in one of the barrack rooms. He used words to the effect that whoever did it must step forward, and that his intention was to keep them there until he had got to the bottom of the matter. Nobody stepped forward and he then addressed each man personally, asking them where they had been. The appellant answered, "1 was in bed. The sergeant major then said to the company words to tho effect, "I am not leaving; I am staying here until you give me an answer about this fighting." At that point the appellant stepped forward and said: "I did the stabbing." When asked what weapon he had used be replied that it was a bayonet which was by the bed in the barrack room. The Court was quite clear that vhile there was nothing improper in the action taken by the reginental sergeant major, the evidence of what took place was clearly inadmissible at the prisoner's triaL It had always been the ftindamental principle of the Courts, quite apart from so-called Judges' Rules of Practice, that a prisoner's confession outside the Court was admis- sible only if it was voluntary. In deciding whether an admission was voluntary the Courts had been at pains to hold that the most gentle threat or slight inducement would taint a confession. To say to all those on parade "You are staying here and are not going to bed until one of you owns up" was in the view of the Court clearly a threat. It might also be looked upon as an inducement in that tle converse was true, but whichever way one looked at it the Court was clearly of opinion that while the action was perfectly proper and a useful start to the mquiries, evidence in regard thereto was, inadmissible. At about 7.30 the next moTning the sergeant from the special investigation branch came down to make inquiries. Per- fectly properly, when he first saw the prisoner he gave him the usual caution. He went on to refer to what had happened the night before and to the admission to the sergeant major that he had " stabbed three men." (The sergeant had apparently been told that three men were involved.) The prisoner replied: " Yes, I am not deny- jng it. I stabbed three of them all right." After a written caution, which the prisoner signed. a statement followed in which he admitted that he had stabbed about three men altogether with a bayonet which he found on the floor of the room. DID ORIGINAL TAINT PERSIST? It had been urged bv Mr. Bowen that the original taint Persisted in these later confessions, The Court thought that the principle to be deduced from the cases was that if the threat or promise under which the first statement was made persisted. then the second statement was inadmissible. In the present case the Judge Advocate never had to rule on this second statement: having admitted the first statement there was no question on that basis but that the second statement must also be admissible. It was quite clear that the effect of any original inducement or threat under which the first statement was made had been dissipated. On those grounds the Court accordingly had come to the conclusion that the oral and written statements made to the sergeant of the special investigation branch were clearly admissible. The second point concerned causation. The deceased man received two bayonet wounds, one in the arm and one in the back, Tne one in the back, unknown to anyone, had pierced the lung and caused haemorrhage. There followed a series of unfortunate occurrences. A fellow- member of his company tried to carry him to the medical reception station. On the way he tripped over a wire and dropped the deceased man. He picked him up. went a little farther, and fell a second time, causing the deceased man to be dropped on to the ground. He then went for help. and ultimately the deceased man was brought into the reception station. There the medical officer and his orderly were trying to cope with a number of other cases, and it was clear that they did not appre- ciate the seriousness of the deceased man's condition. A transfusion of saline solution was attempted and failed. When his. breathing. seemed impaired he was given oxygen, and artificial respiration was applied. He died after he had been in the station about an hour, which was about two hot)rs after the original stabbings. "OPERATING AND SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE" It was now known that. his lung having been pierced, the treatment that he was given was thoroughly bad and might well have affected his chances of recovery. No doubt his being dropped and having artifi- cial respiration applied would halt or at any rate impede the chances of the wound healing and the haemorrhage stopping. In those circumstances Mr. Bowen urged that not only was a careful summing-up required but that a correct direction to the Court would have been that they must be satisfied that the death was a natural con- sequence and the sole consequence of the ,ogund and fliowed4 directly from. it. It seemed to tne"Court that if at the time of death the original wound was still an operating cause and a substantial cause. then the death could properly be said to be the result of the wound even if some otber cause of death was also operating. Only if it could be said that the original wound was merely the setting in which another cause operated could it be said that the death did not result from the wound It was true that the Judge Advocate in his summing-up did not go into the refine- ments of causation, and in the opinion of the Court he was wise to refrain from doing so. He did leave the broad question to the Court as to whether they were satis- fled thai the wound had caused the death in the sense that death flowed from the wound albeit that the treatment he received was, in the light of after-knowledge, a bad thing. In the opinion of this Court that was a perfectly adequate summing-up on causation on the facts of this case. A man was stabbed in the back, his lung pierced. and haemorrhage resulted. Tlwo hours later he died of baemorrbage from that wound. In the interval there was no time for a careful examination and the treat- ment given turned out to have been in- appropriate and indeed harmful. In those circumstances no reasonable-jury or Court, properly directed, could come to any other conclusion than that the death resulted from the wound. The Court would dismiss the appeal. Solicitors.-Courts-Martial Appeal Court; Director, Army Legal Services. COURTS-MARTIAL APPEAL COURT MURDER APPEAL DISMISSED REGINA v. SMITH