BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 1070 (QB) (09 May 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/1070.html
Cite as: [2018] EWHC 1070 (QB)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 1070 (QB)

Case No: HQ13X02162

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

 

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 9th May 2018

 

Before :


MR JUSTICE STEWART

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

 

 

Kimathi & ors

Claimants

 

- and -

 

 

The Foreign And Commonwealth Office

Defendant

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Simon Myerson QC and Louise Cowen (instructed by Tandem Law, (Lead Solicitors)) for the Claimants

Simon Murray and Jack Holborn (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant


Hearing dates: 18 and 19 April 2018

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment Approved

Mr Justice Stewart:

Introduction

1.                   On 20 December 2017 I handed down judgment in relation to a controversial issue as to reliance on extracts from Hansard.[1]

2.                   On the same date I made this Order:

“……..

AND UPON the Court having ruled upon the purposes for which Parliamentary material may be admitted in its judgment of 20 December 2017.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.      The Claimants shall by 12 January provide a redacted version of the Opening to reflect the Court’s judgment of 20 December 2017 on the admissibility of Parliamentary material…”

              (See also paragraph 40 of the Hansard judgment)

3.                   Matters have arisen which require further consideration.  In summary these are:

(i)                 The extent to which paragraph 1 of the Order permits the introduction of new text to the Claimants’ Opening.

(ii)               The extent to which the Claimants may be permitted to use alternative documents to support submissions that were previously supported by the excluded Hansard material.

(iii)             An application by the Claimants to rely on certain extracts from Hansard.

4.                   The only relevant evidence is from Mr Steven Martin, the Claimants’ Solicitor.  It is in his 14th Witness Statement dated 21 February 2018 at paragraphs 60-68.  He points out that the extent of the redacted opening has been challenged by the Defendant and then continues:

“65. The Claimants have been reviewing the content of the Opening to address the above concerns.  If issues in the Opening cannot be substantiated by the content of Hansard documents, the Claimants may lose the opportunity to properly present the facts of the case.  In the circumstances, to allow the Claimants to continue with the same substantive issues that have been relevant to the case, the Claimants seek to substantiate the issues by reference to other documents.

66. The Claimants are not seeking to make new substantive points, but merely to make the same points with reference to other documents due to the change in status of Hansard material.  The majority of the documents that the Claimants seek to rely upon to substantiate the same points in the Opening are already in the Caselines eBundle and have been adduced. There are however a small number of other documents that the Claimants seek to rely upon.

…

68. In view of the small number of new documents being adduced for this purpose, the Claimants seek permission to rely upon these additional documents.  The documents in question will be referenced in the Opening and it will be clear therefore what the document is said to prove.”

Redactions to the Claimants’ Opening

5.                   The Claimants have provided draft revised Openings.  I understand that the one which I now have is the third revised version. 

6.                   Having considered the submissions:

(a)          I accept that once a redaction has been made by deleting some material then the addition of text may be necessary so as not to render the remaining text nonsensical.

(b)         The Order required a redacted version to reflect my judgment on the admissibility of Parliamentary material.  It does not require redaction of the Claimants’ point made.  Whether that point is sustainable without the text is another matter.

(c)          However the Order, even so construed as allowing redaction and some necessary insertion to make sense grammatically of the relevant section of the Opening, is not the same as adding to the Opening.  Therefore such additions must be carefully scrutinised.  This scrutiny has to be carried out in conjunction with the application to use alternative documents, to which I now turn.

Using Alternative Documents

7.                   In paragraph 23 of the Hansard judgment I said this:

“23.In paragraph 19c of the Claimants’ skeleton it says that the Claimants do not need to refer to Hansard to prove information provided from Kenya, “although it is the easiest route.” If the Claimants do not need to refer to Hansard to prove matters which they wish to prove then they can prove, or could have proved, those matters by alternative admissible evidence.”

8.                   That judgment was not deciding whether the Claimants could or could not now substitute different documents instead of the Hansard material.  That point has to be considered on its merits now that it has specifically arisen.  Strictly there was no separate application not based on paragraph 23 of the Hansard judgment.  However, that technical point was not pursued, correctly since all the arguments and information were in play.

9.                   Apparently all documents, apart from four, have been previously adduced in the case.  I will leave those four for later consideration.  As regards the remainder, the Claimants submit that, given that the documents have already been adduced in evidence and that the assertions they support are in the Opening, they should be permitted.  The Claimants say that this would cause no prejudice to the Defendant.  I will deal with these documents in the schedule on an individual basis.  Broadly I agree with the Claimants, save as to the documents which have hitherto not been adduced in the case.  While the Court has generally been quite strict (necessarily) on case management, the Claimants’ Opening is not to be regarded as a pleading.  Minor amendments and a few substituted documents essentially making the same/similar point to the redacted Hansard material are generally permitted.  Generic submissions will not be reached for a number of months.

10.               I now turn to documents which have not been previously adduced.  These are in respect of paragraphs 209, 800, 883 (1 document only) and 906 of the Claimants’ Opening.  Save for paragraph 883, which I deal with separately on the attached Scott schedule and which has particular factors, I deal with such documents in my response to paragraph 209.  The final date for the Claimants to adduce documents was at the close of their case at the end of April 2017.  There have been certain relaxations to this based on agreement between the parties.  Nevertheless, the documents relied upon here do not come within those exceptions.  I am not prepared, at this stage of the trial, to allow reliance upon new documents which, albeit disclosed, were not adduced.  The adducing of documents by both parties has been relied upon as an important feature of the case so as to provide some certainty.  

The Use of Hansard Documents

11.               Schedule 2 to the Claimants’ skeleton contains a list of 27 Hansard documents.  I attach a copy of schedule 2 to this judgment.  It is a revised version which the parties produced during the hearing.  They document discussions about Kenya in the UK Parliament.  The Claimants say that they rely upon those documents for the fact that the matters under the heading “Document” were discussed in Parliament on particular dates, and they submit that the Court can draw an inference from the fact of those discussions.  In terms of responsibility for the actions of the Colonial Government and those acting on behalf of the Colonial Government, the Claimants’ case is that the Defendant controlled Kenya factually and legally.  Building upon that, the Claimants submit:

(a)          The Hansard documents are further evidence that the Defendant understood it was accountable to elected representatives for every detail of Kenya policy. 

(b)         They rely upon paragraph 14(ii) of the Hansard judgment where I said: “A mere reference to events in Parliament does not of itself infringe Article 9”.  Authorities for this proposition are in footnote 23 to that judgment. 

(c)          Finally they say it is profoundly undemocratic to seek to prevent a court assessing the proper inference to be drawn from any fact, let alone when the fact is that an elected parliament discussed a particular issue.  Parliamentary Privilege is not there to protect that.

12.               Certain preliminary observations are necessary here.  The first is that the application dated 21 February 2018 in this regard asked for “permission to adduce the Hansard documents listed in schedule 2 to this Order solely for the fact that relevant topics were mentioned in Parliament.”  That is replicated in paragraph 62 of Mr Martin’s statement as previously set out.  Secondly, 21 of the 27 documents were specifically ruled as impermissible in the schedule to the Hansard judgment.  These 20 are numbers 4, 6-8, 11-15 and 16-27.  They were sought to be adduced for different reasons, but nevertheless had been considered by the court and ruled as impermissible. 

13.               Of the remaining 6 documents, 4 were unconditionally withdrawn.  These were numbers 1, 2, 5 and 9 which corresponded to documents on the Hansard judgment schedule numbers 1, 3, 7 and 13.  In particular documents 1 and 3 were unconditionally withdrawn where the reason given for reliance was “declaration of ultimate control by UK Government” (document 1) and “Lyttelton says (378) he has responsibility” (document 2 on the present schedule, document 3 on the previous schedule).  I appreciate that the Claimants submit that they were relying on the contents in those circumstances and not on the fact that Kenya was discussed (I shall turn to this distinction later), but this alternative was never put to the court in December 2017 and these 4 documents (and 1 other) were unconditionally withdrawn by Mr Myerson.  The details of the conversation with the court are at Caselines 33-21032 to 33-21034. 

14.               In short, therefore, 25 out of the 27 documents have already been ruled as impermissible for the purposes for which they were previously before the court. 

15.               A further matter is that 24 of the schedule 2 documents were disclosed in January 2017 after the date for the Claimants’ disclosure.  They were adduced by reason of paragraph 2 of the Order of 28 November 2017 which stated:

“2. The Claimants have permission to rely upon the documents set out in the revised versions of their Schedule 5 (Hansard) as served on 6 November 2017, and those documents are admitted into evidence:

(a) Exclusively in support of submissions made as to volume of discussions in Parliament; and

(b) Generally for those documents where a “Principle Issue” is identified, subject to reliance not being found to be in breach of Parliamentary Privilege, and subject to permission to adduce any documents disclosed late being either agreed by the parties or granted by the Court.”

            The use for which the documents in schedule 2 are now proposed is different from that determined in the Hansard judgment.  If, as I rule, the use proposed for these documents is not in breach of Parliamentary Privilege, then there was the question of whether the Claimants should have permission to adduce those documents, they having been disclosed late.  In the event, the Defendant took no point on this.

16.               Turning to the law:

(i)           Using material “solely for the fact that Kenyan issues were discussed in Parliament” is permissible.  This was not controversial and 308 documents are permitted to be used for this purpose.  See Hansard judgment paragraph 1.

(ii)         There is a fine line between that principle and the possibility of drawing inferences.  I deal with this in some detail in paragraphs 6-13 of the Hansard judgment.  Nevertheless, the primary issue before me on that occasion was whether the Hansard material could be used so as to prove that what a member said was believed by him/her to be true.  I did not rule specifically on the present point.  This can be seen in paragraph 25 where I referred to section 16(3)(b) of the Australian Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 as confirming my decision and noted that, unlike section 16(3)(c), section 16(3)(b) has never been controversial and has always been judicially recognised as declaratory of the common law.  The controversial provision has been subsection (c) which provides “In proceedings in any court or tribunal, it is not lawful for evidence to be tendered or received, questions asked or statements, submissions or comments made, concerning proceedings in Parliament, by way of, or for the purposes of…(c) Drawing, or inviting the drawing of, inferences or conclusions wholly or partly from anything from part of those proceedings in Parliament.”  The authorities, with which I respectfully agree, are to the effect that s16(3)(c) is not declaratory of the common law in England and Wales – see in particular paragraph 13 (viii) and (ix) of the Hansard judgment.  The citation from the Coulson case at paragraph 24(i) relied upon by the Defendant must be seen in that context.  The comment in the Coulson case that inviting the drawing of inferences or conclusions from anything forming part of Parliamentary proceedings is off limits, goes too far as a general proposition applicable to all circumstances. 

17.               The Defendant does not dispute that Parliament discussed the matters crystallised in the “Document” column in schedule 2.   For example document 1 states “East Africa (Constitutional Changes)”.  If this is an accurate summary, as it is, then there is nothing there which conflicts with Parliamentary Privilege in my judgment.  It may be different if there was any questioning or doubt or affirmation of the accuracy of what was said.  I would not be prepared to countenance this.  The simplest way to deal with this is to receive the revised schedule 2 in submissions.  That will demonstrate, and demonstrate only, that Parliament discussed the matters stated.  The contents of the documents themselves will not be examined.  As to the inferences of fact that may or may not be drawn from the fact that Parliament discussed such constitutional changes, that is a matter for final submissions.  However, there is nothing unlawful in that approach.

18.               I therefore allow the schedule 2 documents specifically on the basis of the application, namely that they are permitted “solely for the fact that the relevant topics were mentioned in Parliament.”  Schedule 2 is admitted solely for what it says on its face.  Any inference drawn from it will be a matter for final generic submissions.

Summary

19.               (i)  Schedule 2 documents are permitted to be relied on as above.

(ii) Redactions and further documents/text are permitted/refused as in the Scott Schedule annexed.

 

Appendix 1



SCOTT SCHEDULE OF DISPUTED REDACTIONS



 

Para

Proposed redacted/revised content (redaction in green or purple text) (redactions in green derive from the opening served on 16.12.17; redactions in purple have been made since that opening was served)

Document to be removed

Document Claimants seek to rely upon

Defendant Response

Claimant’s response

Judge’s Column

[25]

“The response to all unlawful actions, and to those who exposed them, was the same. On the orders of the Governor and the Commander in Chief the policies themselves were to be kept secret. On the orders of the Colonial Secretary and his civil servants, what was not kept secret was to be denied, and the authors of the exposure were to be rubbished. Parliament was consistently misled, so that the Opportunities that would therefore otherwise have arisen to deal with the wrongs being committed were lost”.

 

n/a

 

Agree to deletion.

 

Do not agree to insertions because (i) insertion not permitted by Hansard order and (ii) not supported by evidence (Cs’ response unclear as to where/how final sentence will be supported by evidence).

The proposed amendment is necessary to make sense of the previous sentences in the paragraph. The proposed amendment also makes a submission which will be supported by evidence advanced by the Claimants.

Amendment permitted. 

(1) No further document is relied upon.

(2) No document was relied upon in support of this specific paragraph in the original text.

(3) Apart from the deletion, the only change in wording is to add the word “therefore”.  This does not in any event really change the meaning.  It is almost redundant.

[118]

“Lyttelton agreed with the argument about the Attorney-General, although not for the reasons given. Interestingly, he felt that the issues the settlers raised about District Officers moving on and a lack of continuity were an administrative matter for the Governor. That is evidence of where he drew the line between the Administration and the Defendant. He pointed out that a tribal levy was a mass punishment but said he would look at it. He was, plainly, discomfited by the suggestions and did not believe they would work. Yet, within a very short time, he had permitted the enactment of virtually the whole plan – an oddity when he said, expressly, “Last week, we have had the most drastic action which legally you can take”[2]. When Lyttelton returned to London, he denied to the British Press and to the House of Commons that Mau Mau was in any way “the child of economic conditions” and stressed that it was merely a “primitive irrational attack against the forces of law and order”.

 

n/a

 

Entire sentence should be redacted “When Lyttelton … order” because it is unsupported by evidence.

The parties are exploring means to agree appropriate amendment to this paragraph

This has now been agreed by the deletion in its entirety of the final sentence.

[209]

“The emergency was also marked by the number of judicial executions – by far the highest of any British subjects over any comparable period in modern times, including in other colonies and during other emergencies. A summary of the disposal of capital cases since 1952 states that there were 1029 former capital emergency offences other than murder committed between October 1952 and February 1959. 744 people convicted of these offences were executed [32-78921a]. 470 people described as Mau Mau were convicted of murder during this time. 346 were executed [32-78921a]. In total, the British executed 1,015 Kikuyu men. [3] for Mau Mau offences, of whom 346 were convicted of murder. Over this period, 247 persons were convicted on capital charges unconnected with the emergency, all of whom were murderers. 36 of these convicts had their appeals allowed, while 5 were certified insane. The governor commuted the sentences in 106 cases. By comparison, only 27 people convicted of murder connected to Mau Mau offences had their sentences commuted. [Text removed; footnote retained, document referred to]”.

Emergency Offences (Executions), Hansard 25 April 1956 (CYF-0000043391) [32-46969]

[32-78921a] (this document has not been adduced)

Redact all of Purple insertion because (i) insertion not permitted by Order (ii) makes a similar but not the same point (iii) is an expansion of redacted point, in more detail (dates, references to Mau Mau) (iv) uses different figures (v) para 23 of judgment does not permit amendment, states that Cs ‘can prove, or could have proved’ a point using alternative admissible evidence

The Claimants rely on paragraph [23] of the Hansard judgment to submit that they are entitled to rely on alternative documents and that the amendment is appropriate

The Court agrees with the Defendant’s submissions.  Also, see main judgment for refusal of permission to rely on documents not already adduced in the case.

[223]

 

“When Lennox-Boyd, and Lyttelton before him, were repeatedly challenged in Parliament about the Government’s policy in relation to Kenya, the underlying assumption was that HMG was responsible for, and exercised control over Kenya. For example, on the 3 December 1952 Griffiths MP, in the course of questions concerning conditions in the “concentration camps” asserted, without contradiction, “we are finally responsible”.”

n/a

 

Redact entire para as “underlying assumption” implicitly invites the court to make an inference based on the content of the discussion in Parliament

The Claimants submit that the proposed redaction is sufficient

The paragraph should be redacted in full as:

(i)     The ruling as to the schedule 2 documents goes as far as permissible to make the point about discussions in Parliament.

(ii)   The text is otherwise unsupported.

(iii) The text as it stands may lead to a consideration of what was said in the repeated challenges alleged and the responses.

[223A]

“From time to time prior to and during the Emergency Colonial Office officials considered how the Kenyan Constitution might be developed. The documentation on this topic serves to emphasise that HMG had ultimate control of, and responsibility for its colony. On the 13 December 1950, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, James Griffiths, made a statement to the House of Commons telling Parliament that he had concluded that it would be better to pursue policy for the East African Colonies separately, rather than on an “East Africa basis”, So far as Kenya was concerned he stated that he would be consulting local opinion as to the way forward. He went on to set out the “basic principles of policy’ that must be observed in the process of constitutional development, stating that in the meantime “metropolitan government” would continue to exercise “ultimate control in the East African Colonies” (see Hansard 13 December 1950 [32-99a]). During a cabinet meeting on 20th November 1950, James Griffiths, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, discussed a draft of a statement he was proposing to make in the House of Commons on constitutional development in East Africa. He stated that a conference had been suggested to deal with the problems of East Africa, but his view was to deal with the problems of each territory on individual lines. The Cabinet also expressed the view that any statement should include a warning that some time would pass before self-government could be fully established in those territories [32-98d]”.

Hansard 13 December 1950 [32-99a].

Cabinet Conclusions PREM 8/1113 [32-98d]

Object to entire purple inserted text because (i) insertion not permitted by order  (ii) inserted text is an expansion on the redacted text, introduces additional points (iii) Cs not entitled to rely on alternative documents (iv) court can refer to redacted/struck-out text in order to understand context (without considering redacted/struck-out text)

The Claimants submit that they are entitled to rely on alternative documents and that the amendment is appropriate

The added text is permitted. With reference to the new document:

(i) Insertion was not permitted by the Hansard Order and introduces additional points.

(ii) Nevertheless this is a document adduced already and can be used as an example to support the main proposition to the paragraph.

(iii) There is nothing which suggests that this will cause any serious problems to the Defendant or disrupt the trial in any way.

 Cabinet minutes (though not this particular one) have been opened extensively in the case.

(iv) Were the document not permitted, there would be undue prejudice to the Claimants.

[225]

“Acceptance that the British Government was ultimately responsible for Kenya was echoed by other Government representatives. On the 10 February 1955 in the course of the Amnesty debate in the House of Lords, the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for the Colonies stated “moreover, since the ultimate responsibility for affairs in Kenya- including the surrender offer- rests with HMG, the noble Lord has in fact criticised the whole policy of HMG”[4]. Communications to the Prime Minister also emphasised the UK Government’s responsibility for Kenya. On July 8, 1959, the Prime Minister asked for a “little chart” showing the old and the new position regarding responsibility for Kenya. Both of these charts show the U.K. Government at the top of the chain of responsibility [32-68091]-[32-68084].”

 

The Situation in Kenya, House of Lords Debates (HLD), vol. 190, no. 19, col. 1139, 10 February 1955 (CYF-0000043396) [32,30183]

Correspondence of the Prime Minister's Office [32-68091]-[32-68084]

Object to entire insertion: (i) insertion not permitted by Order (ii) not like for like (iii) insertion refers to new points (eg ‘charts’)

The Claimants submit that they are entitled to rely on alternative documents and that the amendment is appropriate

New text permitted for the same reasons as 223A.  

Although the document is of a different date, the point is on the same subject matter. 

[246]

The section to be redacted is the judicial query at the bottom of the paragraph:

“Upon the query whether document 32-54948 was provided to enable the S of S to answer a parliamentary question: the Claimants do not know if it was specifically provided to Secretary of State to answer Brockway's question. The Question was asked in Parliament by Fenner Brockway on 14 May 1957. The answer provided by the Secretary of State does not fully answer Brockway's question; document 32-54948 appears to be providing some information linked to the latter part of the question regarding employment of detainees. See Hansard for the Brockway question [32-54524a] : it is about detainees and numbers in detention, rather than the types of work]”.

n/a

 

Also redact from “appears” to “work”. 

 

Otherwise, this text invites the court to make an inference about content of Parliamentary debate.

The Claimants submit that the proposed redaction is appropriate

The Claimants’ proposed redaction is sufficient subject to redaction of the last section after [32-54524a].  This is a similar issue to that which I have ruled upon in relation to schedule 2.  The Claimants are merely using the Hansard document to show what was asked in Parliament and to explain the context of document 32-54948.  There is no infringement of Parliamentary Privilege here.

[827A]

“Between October 1952 and December 1959, Parliament considered Kenya on at least 356 occasions. Schedule 5 includes documents adduced for their content for the number of times a topic was discussed in Parliament (the court being permitted to draw such inferences as it sees fit, upon generic submissions by the party) as well as those which simply go to the number above. Insofar as the Claimants adduce the document, the schedule provides a brief description of its content, and the documents are marked in grey. Of the documents in this Schedule marked in white 118 related to information coming from Kenya at London’s request and 12 relate to London’s policy in Kenya. The documents relied upon relate to conditions in detention camps, the need for an Inquiry; deaths in custody and issues in relation to the administration of justice including numbers of people hanged during the State of Emergency”.

n/a

 

Object. (i) insertion of text not permitted by Order (ii) introduces a new argument (inviting court to draw inferences about control/vicarious liability) (iii) cannot invite court to draw inferences from content of Parliamentary discussion/debate

The proposed redaction may depend on the outcome of the hearing concerning the use of further Hansard material

I have permitted the schedule 2 (revised) Hansard material.  Therefore this is permitted also as to the first insertion.  The last section from “Insofar as the Claimants adduce the document….” to the end is not permitted as it potentially opens up the content of what was said in Parliament.  These words (underlined) should be added to the permitted section “a topic was discussed in Parliament as reflected in the Hansard Title in the current schedule 5”.  The Columns headed “Description” and “Issue” on the current schedule 5 are to be redacted.

[340]

“The original plan seems to have been to ‘repatriate’ KEM to the ‘native reserves’ set aside for them by the administration. By the end of February 1953 58,864 KEM had been screened and 39,002 released[5]. By the end of February 1953, 58,864 KEM had been screened and 39,002 released [32-3948]. As Baring made clear to Lyttelton on the 24th February, the priority was the settlers, and no constitutional settlement (by which he meant extending rights to Africans) was possible. The answer was to move the Kikuyu back to the reserves[6]. The idea of using state power to compel the Europeans to accept a fair solution seems never to have occurred to the Defendant. State power was for the benefit of white people. Baring counselled against Asian involvement because they could not be trusted to cooperate or keep secret “our more severe measures”[7]”.

Detained Persons, House of Commons, 4th March 1953 (CYF-0000043398) [32-44849]

Inward Telegram No.180 [KNA CO.822.440] [32-3948]

Object (Order does not permit insertion of text and new reference)

The Claimants submit that they are entitled to rely on alternative documents and that the amendment is appropriate

Insertion of text and new reference permitted for the same reasons as in paragraph 223A above.

[367]*

Contemporaneous political leaders attacked the Conservative government’s colonial policies, particularly Barbara Castle and Fenner Brockway, and detention without trial was particularly challenged.[8] They were in contact with Mbiyu Koinange and Joseph Murumbi, who along with several other Kenyan exiles in Britain formed the Kenya Committee in 1952, shortly before the State of Emergency. In 1953 the committee issued a statement of its aims, which included: “Because we believe that the causes of the present unrest in Kenya lie in the intolerable poverty and land hunger of the vast majority of the African people, and their complete denial of any democratic rights, we aim – 1. To put before the British people the true facts concerning the present situation in Kenya…2.  To arouse the British people to their direct responsibility for the conduct of the affairs in Kenya, and to enlist their sympathy and support to ensure that justice is done in Kenya…3.  To win the support of the British people for the just demands of the Africans in Kenya for elementary democratic rights, the rights to have their own trade union and political organisations, and against all forms of racial discrimination.”[9]

n/a

 

Object to first sentence.

Footnote 7 – Parliamentary material is used to support the claim that political leaders attacked government policy.

Order does not permit Cs to reword footnotes to the Opening.

The Claimants do not agree that the first sentence of this paragraph should be redacted. The Claimants propose rewording the footnote to make clear the document is relied upon to show Castle went to Kenya to inform herself about conditions, rather than for details of forced labour projects.

This problem is resolved by deleting the reference in footnote 7 “Extract from Official Report 14/12/55…(CYF-0000002898 [32,4202]).”  Whether or not the first sentence of the paragraph is supported by evidence elsewhere in the Opening (there being no application to rely on any new document) is a matter for final Generic submissions.  

[378]

“Like detention without trial, this was recognised at the time as wrong. British Labour MPs voiced their outrage in the House of Commons. Fenner Brockway made reference in a publication that the Nazis carried out collective punishments against the Jewish race during the war, British politicians of all parties, preachers of all denominations, writers of all schools of thought – all voiced their indignant protest. The immorality of punishing innocent people was universally recognised. Now only a few voices are raised in protest although the principle is exactly the same. The ILO ICFTU likened Kenya’s forced communal labour to outright enslavement[10]”.

n/a

 

Redact “British” to “Commons” (entire second sentence) because this is an indirect reference to Parliament – where else would MPs voice outrage? – inviting court to make inference about what said in Parliament, and why.

The parties are exploring means to agree appropriate amendment to this paragraph

This has been resolved by the Claimants agreeing to redact the entire second sentence.

[393]

“Those detained were ‘screened’. In Kenya, screening was the preferred term for interrogation. It took place in a variety of contexts including formal and informal Home Guard Posts, detention camps, prisons, settler farms and villages. Screening was synonymous with violence, and the evidence establishes that it was condoned by the administration. It was considered an essential part of the 'pipeline'. In the first 4 months of the Emergency 58,864 were screened [32-3948]. According to information provided on 20th April 1953 for the purpose of a reply to a Parliamentary question, 430 Mau Mau terrorists or suspects had been shot while resisting arrest or attempting to escape [32-5119]. It was said that in the first 4 months of the Emergency 58,864 were arrested and screened.[11] According to answers given to Parliamentary questions, on the 19 April 1953, between the start of the Emergency and April 1953 82,840 were arrested and screened. 436 had been shot resisting arrest.[12] Over the passage of time a form of interrogation known as the 'dilution technique was developed. This included the use of violence to break the will of detainees. There is documentary evidence that Lennox-Boyd sanctioned this policy. Encouraged by local colonial officials, the infliction of violence during interrogations became an everyday function of the Home Guard. It took place in cordoned off area and often involved hooded informants. After interrogation, Mau Mau suspects were taken away for further questioning or sent to detention. Screeners were principally drawn from the Home Guard and paid for their work[13]. The violence is described in various documents[14]”

Hansard 04/03/53 (CYF-0000043398) [32-44849] and Hansard 29/4/53 (CYF-0000043410) [32-5384]

Telegram No. 459 from the Governor to the Secretary of State for the Colonies [TNA CO822/450]

[32-5119]

Object (i) Order does not permit insertion of text

 

(ii) Object to any expansion of redacted text (eg “arrested and…”; reference to “Mau Mau terrorists or suspects” and “or attempting to escape”)

 

(iii) Claimants not entitled to rely on alternative documents

The Claimants submit that they are entitled to rely on alternative documents and that the amendment is appropriate

The Court permits the new text essentially for the same reasons as in 223A.

[591]

“Less than a year after Cram’s Judgement, the Judgement in the case of Kamau Gachina considered. Gichina was killed by Waters and Fuller - 2 police officers. They were initially charged with murder but pleaded guilty to unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm. Gichiina was beaten whilst in custody. When questioned about this in Parliament the Secretary of State claimed that it was an isolated case. [15] It is difficult to see how he could have believed this to be true. Certain it is that. The Secretary of State was asked about this in Parliament. The Secretary of State he was informed that it was untrue because he was in possession of information about abuses by security forces in order to respond to a Parliamentary question; on the 3 November 1955 he was informed that there had been 55 cases of “irregularities involving violence by security forces”. These included 7 cases of rape by Kenyan police, 5 cases of rape by tribal police or Kikuyu Guard, 2 cases of rape by the military and 2 cases of rape by chiefs. [16]. It is clear, therefore that abuses continued after Cram’s judgement”.

Detained Persons (Releases), House of Commons, 26th October 1955 (CYF-0000043406) [32-40374]; at 32-40376a and b

Reference may need to be reinserted if amendment allowed

Object to insertion (i) not permitted by Order and (ii) not needed for paragraph to make sense.

The proposed amendment is necessary to make sense of the paragraph

The proposed new text is permitted.  There is no breach of Parliamentary Privilege and no reason why the redaction should, as a matter of common sense and clarity, not permit the new text to be inserted.

[681]

“Lennox-Boyd was asked questions in Parliament concerning the policy of villigisation. It is clear that Lennox-Boyd personally approved the policy of villagisation and when called upon to explain it sought to conceal its true nature from parliament. On the 27 April 1955 he was asked by Mr Manuel "under what authority 600,000 Kikuyu" had been moved from their homes in Kenya and "what compensation was paid for the destruction of their huts"[17]. Lennox-Boyd replied that "most people had been moved voluntarily" and that the powers of compulsory removal had "rarely been used". He said that "the material used had been salvaged from their own homes". This was a far cry from thHomes were routinely destroyed by burning on repatriation – a point that did not escape Mr Manuel who replied, "One cannot salvage from a destroyed home when the home is destroyed by fire", and went on to remind Lennox-Boyd that he had previously admitted that many homes were destroyed by fire[18]. TC 9 MNI was forced from her home by a combination of Home Guard, Police and British soldiers, without being able to collect any belongings and witnessed it then being set on fire. TC 23 Wagichugu Njuki also witnessed his home being set on fire after being forcibly removed from it”.

n/a

 

Object to insertion of text – (i) not permitted by Order; (ii) not needed to make sense of sentence as court can read redacted text

 

Object to questions on the basis that they are irrelevant unless they are inviting the court to make an inference based on the content of what was discussed in Parliament.

The parties are exploring means to agree appropriate amendment to this paragraph

The parties have resolved this on the basis that the first sentence should be permitted, referenced by footnote 16.  Then the sentence commencing “On the 27th April 1955…” will be redacted.

[765]

“Lennox-Boyd visited East Africa and had a tour of Manyani camp in the autumn of 1954. He could not deny the typhoid. A memorandum by the Minister for Defence dated 4th November 1954 states that “on 31st October there were 264 typhoid cases in hospital and approximately 572 convalescent…During the period 28th August -31st October, there were 87 deaths from typhoid, 53 of which were in October. The total number of cases of typhoid for the same period is 839” [32-17977].  He reported that 63 people had died of typhoid in Manyani and another 760 people were infected with the disease. However, he announced to the House of Commons, the outbreak “was not due to the camp water supplies or sanitation or to any failure to take proper health measures”[19]. the spread of disease was due to personal contact with detainees who were already infected prior to their transfer to the camp. When he implied that the camp was a model facility for maintaining the detainees’ physical and mental wellbeing he must have known that was not right. may, by then have been right. TC 31, Robert Njire Ngethe, describes being at Manyani after April 1954 and witnessing the conditions and consequent typhoid. He also describes how, after the illness, a British officer was sent in to clean up and disinfect the camp. But this was not the position beforehand: both TC 13, Ndogo Gatutu, and TC, 26 Njuguna Munjaro, describe the food provided at Manyani as contaminated with sand, causing many detainees to become ill. Njuguna Munjaro states that two of his housemates became sick and died from the contaminated food”.

House of Commons Debate (HCD), vol. 531, col. 1192, 20th October 1954. (CYF-0000043923) [32-23834]

Page [32-17977] is sought to be relied on.

That is a page from WAR/C.106 Progress Reports 1-88 (nos. 21, 23, 48, 78 and 80 being incomplete) [32-17953]

 

Object to insertion – (i) not permitted by Order.

 

(ii) different point/not like for like; expansion of redacted point.

The Claimants submit that they are entitled to rely on alternative documents and that the amendment is appropriate

New text permitted for the reasons given in 223A and 225.

[800]

 

 

“The Defendant’s response to Fletcher’s claims, which were in substance demonstrably correct, was to deliberately rubbish her in an effort to refute her claims. Faced with the choice between acting to improve the conditions Fletcher had exposed and smearing the person doing the exposing, Lennox-Boyd chose the latter. In a later debate over Fletcher in Autumn 1956, he said, “I am quite satisfied that Miss Fletcher’s charges are based in the main on hearsay, on partisan opinion and personal prejudice. The negligible amount of criticism which could be levelled has proved to be wholly disproportionate to the impression that she has contrived to create. I would ask all fair minded people to read carefully the documents in the library of this house and to make up their own minds”. Tory backbenchers were given information to discredit those who made allegations concerning the conditions in prisons and camps in Kenya [32-76431]. Fletcher’s allegations are described as being “discredited in 1956 [32-76431]””.  

Paragraph currently unreferenced.

Background of those who have made allegations. Advising backbench Conservative MPs to ask questions about accusers unreliable backgrounds [32-76431] (this document has not been adduced)

Object to insertions: (i) not permitted by Order; (ii) doc cited does not substantiate the point made (iii) and a selective and inaccurate quotation is used;

 

(iv) doc not adduced

The Claimants submit that they are entitled to rely on alternative documents and that the amendment is appropriate

New text and new document refused for the reasons given above in relation to 209.  Also, the origin of documents is not clear, but it does not support the submission for which it is cited.

[854]

“Barbara Castle investigated further. She demanded to know “how many convictions there have been for assault on prisoners at Gathigiriri Works Camp... [and] how many prisoners have died as a consequence of ill-treatment?”[20]. Lennox-Boyd eventually admitted there had been 27 other cases of assault occurring at Gathigiriri[21]. He then revised that figure to 37. Information on the number of assaults at Gathigiriri may also be taken from newspaper articles published concerning the sentencing of those convicted of assault. A report entitled “Five acquitted of works camp murder” reports that the mitigation advanced on behalf of those convicted included a reference to there being no less than 27 similar assaults” [32-54029]. Further evidence of the extent of abuses at Gathigithirri emerged at the Enquiry into the Disciplinary proceedings against Hirst and Rowe wherein there is reference to 37 cases of assault [32-56135 – 32-56138]”.

PRO, CO 912/19/30, Parliamentary Questions, 29th July 1957. (CYF-0000043639) [32-57006]

Page [32-54029] is sought to be relied upon.

This is taken from Enquiry into allegations of brutality at Gathigiriri Works Camp (1957) [KNA AB/18/1] (CYF-0000043788 [32-54027]

 

Pages [32-56135 – 32-56138] are sought to be relied upon.

They are taken from INQUIRY HELD AT NAIROBI ON 8TH, 9TH, 10TH AND 11TH JULY, 1957 [32-55784]

 

Object (i) insertion not permitted by Order; (ii) expansion of redacted point (iii) Claimants are not permitted to rely on alternative documents

The Claimants submit that they are entitled to rely on alternative documents and that the amendment is appropriate

New text and new document permitted essentially for the reasons given in 223A and 225.

[856]

“The Colonial Secretary assured the House of Commons that the assaults were appropriately taken care of in Kenya’s local Courts of Justice, and that those accused of beating the detainees, all of whom were African loyalists, had been sent to prison. Of course, that necessarily involved an admission that the convictions were correct. That in turn necessarily involved an admission that the policy that led to the beatings (of the details of which Parliament was not made aware) was unlawful. The Colonial Secretary assured the House of Commons that the assaults were appropriately taken care of in Kenya’s local Courts of Justice, and that those accused of beating the detainees, all of whom were African loyalists, had been sent to prison [32-54027]. Of course, that necessarily involved an admission that the convictions were correct. That in turn necessarily involved an admission that the policy that led to the beatings (of the details of which Parliament was not made aware) was unlawful.”

Currently unreferenced

Enquiry into allegations of brutality at Gathigiriri Works Camp (1957) [KNA AB/18/1] (CYF-0000043788 [32-54027]

 

Object – insertion not permitted by Order

The Claimants submit that they are entitled to rely on alternative documents and that the amendment is appropriate

The only insertion here is a new document, which is not Hansard, to support the same submission.  This is permitted for the reasons given in paragraph 223A.

[857]

 

“Whatever the legal arguments now advanced, the Defendant was not prepared to advance those arguments at the time. On 29th July 1957, Castle asked Lennox-Boyd in the House of Commons, “Does this not reveal that there has been the most unsatisfactory state of affairs in this camp for a very long time?” Another Labour MP, cut in, “When the right hon. Gentleman [Lennox-Boyd] says that these were minor offences, is he aware that the offence was that hard-core detainees in this camp who did not confess were tied by their hands some three feet from the ground and flogged with strips of rubber cut from tyres until they did confess? Is this a minor assault?” Lennox-Boyd replied: “I was dealing with minor injuries. Only minor injuries were inflicted. The hon. Lady [Castle] should not draw from that the belief that there was widespread violence and cruelty at this camp.”[22]

Regarding follow up questions by Castle or Paget regarding the Disciplinary Inquiry referred to by Lennox-Boyd at 32-56606: see the Disciplinary Inquiry into the conduct of the Commandant of Gathigiriri camp in relation to 25.1.57: HC Deb 31 October 1957 vol 575 cc80-1W80W §32 and 33].”

n/a

 

Object because questions are either irrelevant or seek court to reach an inference from content of Parliamentary debate

The parties are exploring means to agree appropriate amendment to this paragraph

Not permitted.  I agree with the Defendant’s submission.  The further suggestion that the text be replaced by “Lennox Boyd was asked to define a minor assault” is not an accurate representation of what he was asked.

[883]

“The mitigation advanced demonstrates clearly the view of the administration. The Ministry of African Affairs gave Githu – convicted of a separate assault a year earlier – a character reference: “I am instructed by the Minister to say that the services of such a man are very sorely needed by Government”. That character reference was altered from its initial draft by the Minister to ensure that the dilution technique was not examined in Court, and in exchange for the reference Githu’s lawyer agreed not call evidence about dilution. Githu’s lawyer relied on the fact that the Government did not consider the previous assault serious. His submission on bucket fatigue was that it was irrelevant because, “the imposition of hard labour was authorised”.

Githu had a choice of defences. He could deny everything. Or he could assert that what he did was authorised by the Administration. Both choices had drawbacks. The former was a lie. The latter was not a defence. He chose the former. His camp commandant, Duffy, backed him up. The Magistrate, in blunt and compelling terms, believed neither [32-64991 refers:  Judgment 23rd April 1959].

In mitigation, Githu’s lawyer (and, unlike the detainees, he had one) asserted that “the imposition of hard labour was authorised” [32-65012 refers: Mitigation]. That assertion was itself the product of careful negotiation. Griffith-Jones and Baring knew that Lennox-Boyd had been told that the death was the result of natural causes, and had said so to Parliament. 3 months later he had yet to be disabused of that belief [32-62422 refers: Memo on the death; Griffiths-Jones to Baring 9th January 1959] and the AG eventually drafted a telegram [32-60604 refers:  Draft telegram; Baring to Lennox-Boyd undated] making clear that the initial reports were false and that the conclusion of the Inquest was unreliable (Baring’s telegram to Lennox-Boyd after conviction set out the chronology [32-65104 refers: Telegram 25th April 1959]).

The CID investigation meant they could not avoid the Githu case being ventilated in public, particularly as Lennox-Boyd had given Barbara Castle an account which had to be corrected [32-62428 Memo on Case, undated but pre 19th January 1959 (see handwriting at top)]. Lennox-Boyd had written to Castle on 31st October 1958 stating that “there is no truth in the allegation that the deceased was beaten by African warders at Aguthi Camp” [CYF 0000007095]. He wrote to Castle again on 3rd February 1959 confirming that the report on which he based his letter of 31st October 1958 was inaccurate and apologising for having misled her [CYF 0000007107]”.

 

[CYF 0000007095]. and

[CYF 0000007107]

(the Claimants believed these documents has not been adduced, though CYF 0000007107 has been adduced at [50-1392]

Object – (i) insertion not permitted by Order (ii) insertion seeks to make new points (content letters to Castle)

 

The Claimants submit that they are entitled to rely on alternative documents and that the amendment is appropriate

One of the documents, namely CYF0000007107 has previously been adduced, but 0000007095 has not been previously adduced, though apparently referred to in the Opening.  These references and texts are allowed for clarity purposes and make sense of a redacted part of paragraph 58 of the Law Section of the Claimants’ Opening.

Para [897]

“The Hola Massacre occurred after the deaths in 1958, during Dilution – of which the Secretary of State was aware[23]. Furthermore, in February there was a Parliamentary debate in which the Secretary of State denied the need for an independent enquiry.[24]Indeed Baring subsequently wrote to Amery thanking him for his performance in the debate and “I think you undoubtedly killed the bogey of a general enquiry”.[25]  On 3rd March 1959 the detainees at Hola refused to work. In response, the guards beat them with whips and batons. Eleven detainees were clubbed to death by their African guards while the European warders looked on[26]”.

n/a

 

Redact “Furthermore” to “Indeed”.  Otherwise, this invites the court to make inference as to content/reason behind SoS’ denial for need of enquiry.

The Claimant does not accept that any redaction is required to this paragraph

The point which the Defendant makes is accepted as the denial would have to be  put in context and would risk analysing the content of the proceedings before the House.

[906].

“Hola made apparent the culpability of the most senior officials in the Kenya administration, both in the regime that had resulted in the violence at Hola and the attempt to cover up the         incident. The House of Commons debated the incident on 16th June 1959[27] and 27th July 1959 [32-68511]. No MP found any reason to support the government. In the latter debate, Barbara Castle led the debate, but the key speech was from Enoch Powell [at 32-68542–32-68546] who castigated the morality of an Empire that could permit a prison regime of the kind at Hola to exist [See also, [32-68643] for a report of the latter debate].”

 

Hola Camp, Kenya (Report), House of Commons, 27 July 1959 [32-68511]

and

Outward Telegram
From the Secretary of State for the Colonies
Emergency No.619

[32-68643] (this document has not been adduced)

 

 

Object to insertion of new date – not permitted by Order, and is insertion of new details

 

Object to sentence “No MP …” on basis it invites inference from court.

 

Redact “the key” – invites inference from court

 

Object to sentence from “who castigated” to “exist” (inviting evaluation of what said in Parliament by court)

The Claimants submit that they are entitled to rely on alternative documents proposed. The parties may be able to agree alternative wording of this paragraph.

(i) “No MP found any reason to support the government” should come out as that would require detailed consideration of the debate motive etc.

(ii) The sentence about Enoch Powell should also be redacted as it may lead to questioning whether he was right or wrong, justified or unjustified.

(iii) In any event, document 32-68643 should not be permitted for the same reasons as document 209.  

[908]

“Of course, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller had not seen the firsthand descriptions of the violence employed in dilution, which Lennox-Boyd had been sent from Kenya (see §828 above). [When he forwarded that view on, Lennox-Boyd must have known he was asking people to lie]. In due course he told Parliament, “I am completely satisfied that by the use of this phrase Mr. Cowan did not seek the approval of his superiors to beating the detainees to make them work. I am also completely satisfied that those who approved this proposal never intended to sanction, and never sanctioned, that.[28]” “Lennox-Boyd also wrote to Baring concerning the Hola Inquiry in terms making his concerns about publicity clear. He states “I should certainly want to avoid a statement in Parliament as that would lead to debate but oral answer in Parliament (which could not, except at great length, convey adequately full reasoning behind decisions) would provoke difficult supplementary questions which would, in my view, lead to even greater degree of publicity which you fear” [32-68249].”

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1959/jun/16/hola-detention camp#S5CV0607P0_19590616_HOC_288. (CYF-0000043419) [32,55185]

Page [32-68249] is sought to be relied upon.

This is taken from Telegram from Secretary of State to Baring [32-68248]

 

Object – insertion of new text and points is not permitted by Order

The Claimants submit that they are entitled to rely on alternative documents and that the amendment is appropriate

It is agreed that the sentence in red brackets should be deleted in any event..  The new text and Document 32-68249 are permitted for the same reasons as 223A/225.

 

Paragraph (5) (b) of  “the Law” section

“The status of the Claimants as British subjects was well–recognised at the time.  Support is obtained from at least but not necessarily limited to:

a. Telegram [32-11212] referring to the Griffiths case of “a murder of a British subject by a British Subject”

b. Information provided for the related Parliamentary question at 32-11430”

n/a

 

Object to (b) – extract from report – this is not republication therefore is Parliamentary material (copy of Q&A in Parliament)

The Claimants agree that reference to the Parliamentary question can be redacted.

This is now agreed.

Paragraph [9] “the Law” section

“More importantly, Kenya was not “self-governing” (see later under vicarious liability) if, by that, the Defendant asserts it had full autonomy. The contemporaneous evidence indicates precisely the opposite. When constitutional development in East Africa was discussed in 1950 (Cabinet Conclusions, 20.11.1950 PREM 8/1113 [to be uploaded]) the Cabinet recognised that some time would pass before self-government could be fully established (see para 223A above). The statement to Parliament following this discussion on 13 December 1950 (Hansard Parliamentary Debates (1950 – 1) Vol 482 cols 1167-9 [to be uploaded] made HMG’s intention to continue to control Kenya clear. Griffiths, then Colonial Secretary said: “It will be some time before that stage [full self-government] is reached and meanwhile it is essential that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom should continue to exercise their ultimate control in the East African territories. It is their firm intention to do so, while encouraging all reasonable freedom of action by the local Governments”.”

n/a (though related to use of document at paragraph [223A])

 

Object (because object to para 223A)

The Claimants submit that the proposed redaction is appropriate

This is permitted as 223A has been permitted.

 

 

 












Schedule 2 (Revised)

 

 

Number

 

 

Caselines

 

 

Document

 

 

Date

1

32-99a

EAST AFRICA (CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES)

13/12/1950

2

32-2092a

KENYA (SITUATION)

25/11/1952

3

32-2110af

Communal Punishment (Emergency Regulations)

26/11/1952

4

32-2446a

Information Requests

17/12/1952

5

32-3411a

KENYA (SITUATION)

28/01/1953

6

32-7609a

African Prisoners

15/07/1953

7

32-14124a

Arrested Persons

24/02/1954

8

32-17685b

Public Works Projects

02/06/1954

9

32-20266b

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO KENYA

14/07/1954

10

32-23833b

Detained Persons

20/10/1954

11

32-24946a

Detention Orders

10/11/1954

12

32-25607a

AFRICANS, KENYA (DEATH PENALTY)

24/11/1954

13

32-27388a

COLONIAL TERRITORIES

22/12/1954

14

32-30075a

KENYA WORKS CAMPS (SCREENING)

09/02/1955

15

32-30829f

Moved Villagers

23/02/1955

16

32-32083a

Appeal Tribunals

30/03/1955

17

32-33422c

Displaced Kikuyu

27/04/1955

18

32-40376e

Emergency Situation

26/10/1955

19

32-46522a

Detention Without Trial

28/03/1956

20

32-46861b

Detained Persons

18/04/1956

21

32-53558d

Detainees and Mau Mau Convicts (Release)

13/03/1957

22

32-55443a

Juvenile Delinquents

26/06/1957

23

32-58149a

Gathigiriri Works Camp (Disciplinary Inquiry)

31/10/1957

24

32-59520a

Detainees

17/04/1958

25

32-69629a

Emergency Regulations (Revocation)

17/11/1959

26

32-1622a

Kenya (Mau Mau Activities)

16/10/1952

27

32-40376a

Kamau Case (Police Organisation)

26/10/1955

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] [2017] EWHC 3379 (QB)

[2] Verbatim report meeting of Secretary of State and European Elected Members (CYF-0000034500) [32,1815]

[3] Emergency Offences (Executions), Hansard 25 April 1956 (CYF-0000043391) [32,46969]

[4] The Situation in Kenya, House of Lords Debates (HLD), vol. 190, no. 19, col. 1139, 10 February 1955 (CYF-0000043396) [32,30183]

[5] Detained Persons, House of Commons, 4th March 1953 (CYF-0000043398) [32,44849]

[6] Letter from Governor to Secretary of State for the Colonies [TNA CO 822 598] (CYF-0000017768) [32,3818]

[7] Decypher of Telegram No. 318 from Governor to Secretary of State for the Colonies [Hanslope] (CYF-0000004625) [32,4221]

[8] Barbara Castle visited Kenya to inform herself about conditions, see for example Central Province South Provincial Intelligence summary for Period Ending 24/11/1955; Extract from Official Report 14/12/55. (CYF-0000005928) [32,41266] ; (CYF-0000002898) [32,42042]

[9] KNA, MAC/KEN 34/1, Kenya Committee, Kenya Reports, 1953. (CYF-0000016006,1) [32,2675]

[10] KNA, OP/EST1/985/25, minute to file, 26th October 1953. (CYF-0000043451) [32,9726]

[11] Hansard 04/03/53 (CYF-0000043398) [32,44849]

[12] Hansard 29/4/53 (CYF-0000043410) [32,5384]

[13] C/KBU/2/1, DO Gatundu, “Handing Over Report - Gatundu Division, C.A Holmes to G.H. Knaggs,” June 1955 (CYF-0000019379) [32,33555]

[14] KNA MAA/8/169, Deputy City African Affairs Officer to City African Affairs Officer, 22 March 1953; RHL Mss Perham 567, file I, “Statement by D Martin, Alliance High School, Kikuyu,” 17 May 1953. (CYF-0000002861) [32,4345]; (CYF-0000002853) [32,5785]

[15] Detained Persons (Releases), House of Commons, 26th October 1955 (CYF-0000043406) [32,40374]; at 32-40376a and b

[16] Telegram Confidential No.1107, from Secretary of State to Governor [Hanslope] (CYF-0000006166) [32,40661]; Telegram No 1272 Parliamentary Question by Mr. Sorenson [Hanslope] (CYF-0000006165) [32,40598]

[17] Hansard 27/4/55 Lennox-Boyd reply to question on villagisation (CYF-0000010943) [32,33427]

[18] Hansard 27/4/55 Lennox-Boyd reply to question on villagisation (CYF-0000010943) [32,33427]

[19] House of Commons Debate (HCD), vol. 531, col. 1192, 20th October 1954. (CYF-0000043923) [32,23834]

[20] PRO, CO 912/19/30, Parliamentary Questions, 16th July 1957. (CYF-0000042458) [32,56530]

[21] PRO, CO 912/19/30, Parliamentary Questions, 29th July 1957. (CYF-0000043639) [32,57006]

[22] (CYF-0000043638) [32,56606]

[23] See for example Saving from the Governor to the Secretary of State 26/9 58 (CYF-0000001890) [32,60756]

[24] Hansard 24/2/59 Parliamentary debate on detention Camps (CYF-0000042319) [32,63781]

[25] Confidential letter Baring to Amery 6/4/59 (CYF-0000001752) [32,64406]

[26] Govt of the UK, Documents Relating to the Death of Eleven Mau Mau Detainees at Hola Camp in Kenya. PP, Cmd 778 (London, 1959); Govt of the UK, Further Documents Relating to the Death of Eleven Mau Mau Detainees at Hola Camp in Kenya. PP Cmd 816 (London, 1959); Govt of the UK, Record of Proceedings and Evidence in the Enquiry into the Deaths of Eleven Mau Mau Detainees at Hola Camp in Kenya. PP Cmd 795 (London, 1959). (CYF-0000001618 [32,65506]  / CYF-0000001689 [32,65370])

[27] Hansard 16/6/59 (CYF-0000043419) [32,55163]

[28]http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1959/jun/16/hola-detention camp#S5CV0607P0_19590616_HOC_288. (CYF-0000043419) [32,55185]

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010