Enemy civilians as prisoners of war

It might be a reasonable assumption that in times of war people from enemy countries should be rounded up and put in custody or detention. But there has to be a legal basis for this – it is a fundamental principle of English law that a subject cannot be held without just reason. 

At the outbreak of the First World War there were some 53,000 Germans and Austrians living in the country, with over half in London alone. Many of these were young men, economic migrants seeking employment opportunities. But these countries had a form of national service and such men had both undergone military training and were subject to recall to the army. And in the first days of the war many men did receive their call-up papers. 

The Geneva Conventions of 1906 and 1911 recognised such men as non-combatant enemy forces and gave them the right to be treated as prisoners of war. These de facto prisoners of war were then collected and sent to the great detention centres in the Isle of Man and Scotland. 

Absent without Leave

A soldier who failed to report to his place of duty at the required time might be classed as absent without leave. This was a military offence and was dealt with by the military authorities, usually with some minor punishment at the disposal of the man’s commanding officer. But in the First World War it caused immense problems to the civilian courts, particularly in London and the big cities. 

If a soldier overstayed his leave by a day or so, or missed his train, he was in default and liable to arrest. But instead of using common sense and providing the man with a revised travel warrant and sending him on his way, he would be detained in custody and taken to the magistrates’ court. The man’s unit would be notified and an NCO and one or two soldiers despatched to the court (if his unit was serving in France this escort would be sent from its UK headquarters). 

He would be brought from custody and the magistrates would then order him to be handed over to the military escort and to be detained until such time as they arrived. If the man was in the Territorial Forces or the reserves (as were all men of military age under the Military Service Act, 1916) he would also be fined, usually an amount such as 20 shillings (£1), which is the equivalent of twenty days’ pay. 

Ordinarily magistrates had the option of imposing a custodial sentence in default of a fine but this was discouraged as it delayed the man’s return to his unit; instead the fine was to be deducted from his army pay. 

With up to 30% of the cases listed each day comprising military absentees eventually the magistrates themselves protested at the absurdity of the system – even if the man gave himself up voluntarily he was still put in custody. In April 1917 the Army (Annual) Act was updated to give authority from the local police inspector to manage absentees, and the courts were freed from this annoying distraction.

The Norwich Blackout

The expression ‘blackout’ to describe the total extinction of lights was not used during the First World War. Regulation 11 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations gave the Home Secretary the power to make orders to reduce lighting, and in general lights were required to be obscured or dimmed, and only switched off completely in the event of an air raid. 

However, the Chief Constable of Norwich, Mr. E.F. Finch, had met some aviators in the early part of the war, and they had impressed him with accounts of what they could see while flying over Norfolk at night. Finch decided that the Home Office orders were insufficient for his fine city, and so a draconian regime was introduced requiring a full blackout. This included a prohibition on using torches and even on striking matches in the street. 

The conditions were so extreme that when the Home Secretary introduced the Lights (East Coast) Order in December 1915 Norwich was explicitly excluded from it!

Regulation 40D: this really happened

DoRA regulation 40D, the 'Prohibition on sexual intercourse by diseased women' and which made it an offence to infect a soldier with venereal disease. 

A policeman, on information from a soldier, could arrest a woman and take her to the police station, where she would be required to undergo an examination. If infected she would be sent to court and on conviction be fined up to £100 or be given up to six months' imprisonment. 

Between its introduction on 22 May 1918 and its repeal on 26 November 1918, 203 women, married and single, had been prosecuted under the regulation, and 101 were convicted. 

There was widespread outcry against this degrading and humiliating treatment of women, and it remains one of the more shocking aspects of the Defence of the Realm regulations.

Aliens (Restriction) Act 1914

Published today in the 'Criminal Law & Justice Weekly': Aliens (Restriction) Act 1914

This is based on my chapter about the 'aliens' problem during the First World War, and invites comparison with contemporary attitudes to foreigners and immigration.

Welcome to Law and War

While writing about Chelmsford in the Great War I was struck by the impact of wartime legislation on the lives of ordinary people.

Under the myriad regulations introduced under the Defence of the Realm Act, the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restrictions) Act, Aliens (Restriction) Act, and Military Service Act, many people found themselves inadvertently in breach and up in front of the magistrates.

These were not the 'criminal classes'; they were housewives, servants, shopkeepers and workers. But their stories, recorded in the local newspapers, provide a fascinating insight into the way in which the war took over British social life and attitudes.

The English magistrates' court, or court of summary jurisdiction, deals (and dealt) with almost all criminal matters. Simple offences are heard by the magistrates, and more serious matters are sent to the Crown courts. The system was much the same in 1914. I wrote an article on the subject for the Magistrates' Association, and subsequently gave a presentation. Such was the interest that I continued my research, and I have spent the last year examining court records, legal textbooks, and local newspapers, to write an account of the wartime legislation and the magistrates' courts during the Great War.

The resulting book, 'Law and War', is currently with my editors at Pen & Sword Publishing and is due for publication in early 2017. I will use this blog to discuss some of the stories, personalities, and those interminable regulations!