{"title":"‘His brain was not working properly’: the surrender of HMS Seal and the court-martial of Lieutenant-Commander Rupert Lonsdale, RN","authors":"S. Mackenzie","doi":"10.1080/21533369.2019.1602301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The post-war court-martial of Lieutenant-Commander Rupert Lonsdale, skipper of a British submarine captured at sea by the German Navy eight months into the Second World War, resulted in a full acquittal. It has been widely assumed that this trial was a pro forma exercise mounted simply in order to absolve publicly a gallant officer who had found himself in an impossible situation, the final verdict being a foregone conclusion. This was not so. Under the terms of the Naval Discipline Act then in force it was a serious offence to surrender a vessel of the Royal Navy to the enemy if it could still be defended, and the former captain had already admitted to having surrendered HMS Seal without preparing to scuttle her. Given the undisputed central facts of the case, only the introduction at trial by the defence of an unprecedented argument – that a slow build-up of carbon dioxide inside the boat over many hours while it was stuck underwater had rendered its captain mentally incompetent at a critical time – allowed the Court to side with the accused. The outcome influenced later naval disciplinary proceedings and was eventually acknowledged in changes to armed forces law in the United Kingdom.","PeriodicalId":38023,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Maritime Research","volume":"1 1","pages":"103 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Maritime Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21533369.2019.1602301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT The post-war court-martial of Lieutenant-Commander Rupert Lonsdale, skipper of a British submarine captured at sea by the German Navy eight months into the Second World War, resulted in a full acquittal. It has been widely assumed that this trial was a pro forma exercise mounted simply in order to absolve publicly a gallant officer who had found himself in an impossible situation, the final verdict being a foregone conclusion. This was not so. Under the terms of the Naval Discipline Act then in force it was a serious offence to surrender a vessel of the Royal Navy to the enemy if it could still be defended, and the former captain had already admitted to having surrendered HMS Seal without preparing to scuttle her. Given the undisputed central facts of the case, only the introduction at trial by the defence of an unprecedented argument – that a slow build-up of carbon dioxide inside the boat over many hours while it was stuck underwater had rendered its captain mentally incompetent at a critical time – allowed the Court to side with the accused. The outcome influenced later naval disciplinary proceedings and was eventually acknowledged in changes to armed forces law in the United Kingdom.
期刊介绍:
The Journal for Maritime Research ( JMR ), established by the National Maritime Museum in 1999, focuses on historical enquiry at the intersections of maritime, British and global history. It champions a wide spectrum of innovative research on the maritime past. While the Journal has a particular focus on the British experience, it positions this within broad oceanic and international contexts, encouraging comparative perspectives and interdisciplinary approaches. The journal publishes research essays and reviews around 15-20 new books each year across a broad spectrum of maritime history. All research articles published in this journal undergo rigorous peer review, involving initial editor screening and independent assessment, normally by two anonymous referees.