REPORT. (Hansard, 12 July 1881)

Loan BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
moved to omit sub-sections A and B of Clause 4. The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to bring Clause 4 into consistency with other parts of the Bill. At present Schedule A fixed the maximum scale of fees for certain prosecutions. Clause 4, on the other hand, fixed the amount beyond which the defendant should not be cast in expenses. If their Lordships would take the trouble to add up this table of fees, it would be found that under the lowest possible scale the expenses must exceed the maximum amount which was allowed by these two sub-sections. He did not anticipate that the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill would deny that it was so, even in cases where the defendant pleaded guilty. And that was the case even allowing nothing whatever for the travelling expenses of the persons who might be brought to attend as witnesses, and they might have to come from some distance. In a great many cases under these Acts the defendant did not plead guilty; and when witnesses were to be brought, perhaps, some miles, and stay some hours in the town where the trial took place, the prosecutor would be fined in a sum of expenses which could not be less than 10s., and might amount to several pounds. The unfortunate prosecutor would thus often be fined more than the defendant. He could scarcely conceive a more anomalous and more absurd thing than such a state of matters. He had the deepest sympathy with defendants who, when convicted of some trivial offence, and fined a very small sum, were yet cast £2 or £3 of expenses. But surely a better remedy could be found for that than fining the prosecutor.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE
said, it was perfectly true that there still remained in the Bill a considerable difference between the costs as laid down in the Schedule and the maximum 634 amount which was permitted by the Bill to attach to the person convicted. But there was another side of the case to which the noble Lord had not referred. It was only in prosecutions under certain Acts of Parliaments that the persons convicted were cast in any costs at all. In criminal prosecutions under the Common Law of Scotland the person convicted was not cast in costs. This Bill was intended to remedy a very great hardship. A man might at present be fined 2s. 6d. or 5s., and because the prosecutor had been at great expense in establishing the case against him—perhaps £3 or £4—the defendant would be cast in the whole amount of the costs awarded. This was the kind of case which the Bill was intended to remedy. The Government declined to accept the Amendment because it struck at the root of the Bill. If sub-sections A and B of Clause 4 were left out, a man who committed an offence and was fined 2s. 6d. might still be cast in costs to the extent of £2. In civil actions it was the custom that the plaintiff should be re-imbursed his costs by the defendant, if he won his case; but that was not a principle which ought to enter into the Criminal Law. If the noble Lord insisted on the hardship to the prosecutor of his paying part of the costs of a criminal prosecution, still he would submit that the hardship which this Bill was intended to remedy was greater still.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, that as the Bill stood it was most inconsistent. Defendants would be fined for offences in certain cases, and yet they would not have to pay more than a small amount of costs. There would, if the Bill were passed, be a most anomalous state of things in Scotland, and no wonder that his noble Friend objected to these sub-sections. He should vote for the Amendment.

CONTENTS.
Richmond, D.	Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]
Salisbury, M.	Denman, L.
	Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Cairns, E.
Powis, E.	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.) [Teller.]
Redesdale, E.
Rosse, E.	Ventry, L.
	Walsingham, L.
Hawarden, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Aberdare, L.
	Carrington, L. [Teller.]
	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.) [Teller.]
Granville, E.
Kimberley, E.	Sandhurst, L.
Spencer, E.	Sudeley, L.