THEFT OF ARMY PETROL

Evening Star, Issue 24290, 3 September 1942, Page 4

THEFT OF ARMY PETROL

COUNSEL'S COMMENTS CRITICISED STATEMENT BY FORTRESS COMMANDER “.1 must take strong exception to certain remarks made in the Police Court ou Tuesday by counsel for a soldier charged with stealing petrol,” said Colonel J. G. Jeffery, Fortress Area Commander, in a statement to-day. “ Innuendoes which are entirely without foundation were made against the Army, and I think it is only right that the correct position should be placed before the public.” The suggestion by counsel for the accused that the charge was a trivial one showed, an entire lack of appreciation of the position, Colonel Jeffery said. What made the offence a serious one was that the petrol had been taken from two motor cycles which were part of a flying patrol. This meant that they had to be ready for use at a moment’s notice, and that the riders must be able to depend on having full tanks. Actually, the machines had run out of petrol on manoeuvres after the thefts had taken place, but this might just as easily have occurred on active service, as no one could tell when or where the enemy might strike, and the offence would then rank as nothing loss than sabotage. There was nothing trivial about that.

“ Apart from the seriousness of stealing petrol from Army vehicles at a time like the present, any sort of theft around a military camp is disturbing,” Colonel Jeffery said, ‘‘ because until the culprit is found, suspicion rests on a large number of innocent men. with consequent dangers to morale, which it is particularly important to uphold. As for the rumours of wastage o.f petrol in camps referred to by counsel, I have replied to those previously, and once again I say that, considering the immensity of the job the Army is doing, I am satisfied that its expenditure of petrol is far from excessive.” Counsel for the accused had again spoken without knowledge of the facts, Colonel Jeffery added, in suggesting that if the accused had been of higher rank he would have been dealt with by court martial. An Army order had been issued stipulating that all charges of theft in military camps must be dealt with by the civil courts, no matter what the rank of the offender. Counsel’s suggestion was. therefore, unfair. If the accused had come before a court martial the decision would have been published in accordance with the regular procedure and the name of the offender would not have been withheld. That was the case with all decisions of courts martial, and the question of rank did not enter into it.