(c) crown copyright

Catalogue Reference:cab/66/50/36

Image Reference:0001

Printed for the War Cabinet.

May 1944.

SECRET.' W.P. (44) 286.

v . Copy Wo.

WAR CABINET.

'

"'

THE DUFOUR

CASE.

MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY%F STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

1. Nature of case. M. Maurice Dufour, a French national, instituted proceedings in August 1 9 4 3 against General de Gaulle, Colonel Passy and six others, alleging, inter alia, maltreatment at Duke Street (Office of the French Bureau Central de Renseignements Action) and claiming damages for serious assault and false imprisonment and a declaration that he was not a member of the Fighting French forces. The principal incidents complained of took place in May 1 9 4 2 . M. Dufour alleges that he was kept in custody without food, that be was inter rogated for hours at a time under a bright light, and that he was stripped to the waist and beaten. These allegations, if stated, in court, would probably be given great prominence by certain sections at least of the British press. 2. A ttitude of defendants. A written defence was put in in the usual form denying the charges and Counsel were instructed. This action may have been taken without consulting General de Gaulle. However that may be, he subsequently refused to allow any further steps to be taken by the defendants and ordered them to withdraw. His reasons are that he regards Dufour as a blackmailer, considers it beneath his dignity to defend himself against the charges and feels that His Majesty's Government should have sufficient sense of the respect owing to him as repre senting France to stop the case. , 3. A ttitude taken by Foreign Office in considtation with the Home Office. I t is believed that Dufour 's allegations are substantially true and that he will very likely win his case. After careful enquiries the Foreign Office and the Home Office are satisfied (a) that nothing was known to the British authorities of what was going on at Duke Street; (b) that there was no reason why the British authorities should have known or suspected what was probably going on; and (c) that as soon as attention was drawn to Duke Street by this and one or two other cases steps were taken to prevent any further abuses. Nothing criminal is believed to have happened at Duke Street since the end of
1942.

Representations were made to the Foreign Office by the Counsel and solicitors of both sides asking whether His Majesty's Government could not get the case disposed of by a settlement. In view of the facts mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Foreign Office have told both sides that His Majesty's Government had neither the power nor the wish to interfere with the course of justice. M. Vienot has been told privately on a number of occasions that General de GauhVs attitude is the worst he could possibly adopt in the interests of the defendants, since the Court were not only likely to find in favour of Dufour but would also take the view that the defendants were treating the Court with scant courtesy. It is known that M. Vienot and some of the defendants, including
12379 [27558] '

Colonel Passy, have strongly urged General de Gaulle either to settle the case or allow them to fight it. He has, however, refused to listen to these representations and " sees red " whenever the case is mentioned. The only active step taken by the Foreign Office in connexion with the action has beenwith the concurrence of the Home Office, Treasury Solicitor, War Office and intelligence and security authoritiesto ask the plaintiffs solicitor on the 20th May to ensure that the case did not come on before Whitsun. This ,jvas done for military reasons, and the plaintiffs solicitor readily agreed. The present position is that the case cannot come on before the 7th June and will probably come on about the 20th June. I t is impossible to be more definite. 4. Future action. In the circumstances described above I think it would be a serious mistake to intervene in any way in this unsavoury case. Neither the Foreign Office nor any other Department was responsible for what occurred and after full considera tion I think there is a good defence if it should be suggested that any British authorities have been negligent in not knowing about or preventing what occurred. We have nothing to hide and any attempt on our part to interfere would merely give the impression thSt we had. It will be unfortunate if General de Gaulle is here when the case comes on, but he has only himself to blame for that and we can hope that the press will have more stirring events to write up. If General de Gaulle's visit takes place before the case comes up, he should, when he is here, be warned of what is likely to happen. He might again be pressed to defend the action or settle it out of court. I do not think we should do more than this. ' , A. E. Foreign Office, 31st May, 1944.