SECOND READING. (Hansard, 4 May 1870)

§ MR. EYKYN
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the appointment of a public prosecutor had been advocated by many of the most eminent Judges; and a Select Committee 241 had been appointed to inquire into the subject before which Lord Brougham, the present Lord Chief Justice, and other great legal authorities had given evidence strongly in favour of such a course, and the Committee recommended the appointment. The present system of leaving prosecutions to be instituted by private persons, or perhaps by the police, led to frequent failures of justice. In cases of importance, private individuals shrunk from incurring the vast expense which the prosecution would entail, and so great offenders escaped altogether; while in ordinary cases the costs which fell upon a man, who had already been robbed, for prosecuting the thief were an additional burden—not to mention the annoyance and loss of time; so that many men would rather put up with the original loss than proceed for the punishment of the offender. Seeing that the punishment of crime was for the benefit of the public, it seemed only rational that the punishment of the criminal should be pursued at the public expense. As it was, for want of a public prosecutor, a large proportion of criminals escaped punishment altogether. So much was the want of a public prosecutor felt, that in many places in the North some similar institution was maintained by subscriptions. He hoped that the Government would not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but if there were any of the details in it to which they objected, they would amend it in Committee.

§ MR. RATHBONE
said, the necessity of a public prosecutor was generally admitted. The Bill proposed that a public prosecutor should prosecute in all cases where the expenses were paid by the State; that he might intervene in private prosecutions; and that he might drop such prosecutions as he thought unnecessary. He would take cognizance of bankruptcy cases, of charges and informations before justices, in private prosecutions, and in cases before coroners. It was also proposed that he should be able, in all cases of difficulty, to consult circuit counsel, who might afterwards refer them to the Attorney or Solicitor General, and that he might, if he thought fit, then instruct the Solicitor to the 242 Treasury to prosecute at the public expense. It was also proposed to associate a public prosecutor with a private prosecutor when desirable. The Bill also provided that public prosecutors should be appointed by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State; but intimated that he should consult the wishes of the quarter sessions and town councils in such appointments, the object being to prevent the appointments being made on personal or political grounds. The appointment of circuit counsel was based on the necessity of simplifying the duties that would otherwise devolve on the Attorney General, and it was thought that six only would be necessary, and that they might be obtained at an expense not greater in all than about £1,800 per annum. He thought that the appointment of a public prosecutor would not impose any great additional expense upon the ratepayers. In framing this Bill the promoters had not adopted the Scotch system, because, however admirably the system might work in Scotland, the criminal system of that country was so entirely different from that of England, that it could not be introduced into this country without completely upsetting the existing arrangements. The measure, at least in principle, would, he believed, receive the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman the chief Law Adviser of the Crown, who had always expressed himself favourable to a reform of this nature; and the only reason why the subject had been taken up by private Members was that the Government had already too much work on their hands to admit of a reasonable hope that they would be able to proceed with a Bill, of this kind. Still, however, if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would take it up and undertake the conduct of this Bill, either in its present or an amended form, he would add to the many benefits which he had already conferred upon the commercial community and the country by the promotion of legal reforms.

§ MR. WEST
said, that having had experience of the system of public prosecutors which had been adopted at Liverpool, Manchester, and Leeds, he had come to the conclusion that in those places the administration of justice was better than it was in places where public prosecutors were not employed. But hon. Members must not run away with 243 the idea that this Bill intended to provide the country with public prosecutors at all of the character of those in existence in the towns he had named. Those gentlemen were not entrusted with the large and discretional powers which it was proposed to place in the hands of the public prosecutors under this Bill. He only desired at the present moment to impress upon the House the necessity of caution in proceeding with a measure of this kind, in which so many difficult questions were involved. He certainly did not believe that the House would willingly embark in so great an expense as that which would be necessary to carry this Bill into effect; but he should not oppose the measure if, after its second reading, it was intended to refer it to the consideration of a Select Committee.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he would support the second reading on the understanding that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. HENLEY
said, this was a measure of too great importance to be left in the hands of private Members, however experienced they might be. Such a measure should only be introduced on the responsibility of the Government. The cases in which the action of a public prosecutor was required were very few; but this Bill proposed to include every prosecution. It was impossible to say what the expense to be incurred would be, for the Bill mentioned neither the number of officers required, nor the salaries. He did not believe that justice suffered for want of a public prosecutor. The failure of justice arose principally from the police not being able to find the offenders: the numbers of persons apprehended or sent for trial bore but a small proportion to the number of offences reported to the police. Now this Bill would only put the public prosecutor in motion when the offender was detected and in custody. What was required was a more effectual means of detecting offenders. Generally speaking, justice was, in his opinion, very well administered in this country, and he did not believe that by the passing of this or any similar measure the proportion of convictions to offences committed would be largely increased. It might, however, be advisable to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and he should offer no opposition to such a course.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he was quite disposed to concur with the right hon. Gentleman that this was a question of such magnitude and importance as might properly warrant its being dealt with by the Government; but he believed there was no general desire to blame the Government on account of the paucity of measures introduced this Session. He was authorized, however, on the part of the Government to say that they approved the principle of the Bill; though in so saying, of course, he did not commit either himself or his Colleagues to all its details, and he had not anticipated that any discussion would arise with regard to them. The system of public prosecutors was adopted in almost all Continental countries, in America, and also to some extent in Ireland and Scotland; and it appeared to him that there was a conclusive case in favour of supplying what he regarded as a great omission in the administration of the criminal law of this country. He did not assert that that administration was unsatisfactory; but there were evils which were sufficiently serious to be mentioned. In the first place, many offences were not prosecuted at all, while others were only prosecuted inefficiently; and he learnt from statistics that of 30,000 persons who were apprehended, 2,000 were discharged because no one would appear against them; and of 20,000 prisoners who were committed for trial the prosecutions failed in nearly 5,000 cases—in a great measure, probably, because those cases were not properly presented to the juries. There was, again, a class of cases which properly resulted in acquittals, and frequently occasioned actions for malicious prosecutions. Another class was that of collusive prosecutions, or those in which witnesses were bought off or induced to leave the country. In another class the criminal law was abused for the enforcement of civil rights; but, further, it frequently happened that a prosecutor cared very little about his case, and it was taken up by a policeman, who acted not only as the principal witness, but also as the prosecutor. He thought the House would see the danger of giving to a policeman—who ought only to be a witness—an interest in procuring a verdict against a prisoner. These and other considerations had impressed him with the 245 necessity of appointing public prosecutors, who should be responsible for seeing that prosecutions were instituted in all proper cases, and that when instituted they were efficiently conducted, but that in other cases there should be no prosecution. In its leading features this Bill seemed to carry out the recommendations of the Committee of 1855, which had reported on this subject; but as there were in it some deviations from these recommendations, the Bill might be properly considered by a Select Committee. For himself, he would candidly state that he should be glad if the duty of public prosecutor could be properly entrusted to some functionary other than the Attorney General; for he felt that the ordinary duties of the Office were such as to tax his health and strength to the utmost. At the same time, he could not but perceive that the balance of opinion was in favour of the conduct of public prosecutions being entrusted to the Attorney General—an opinion which he himself entertained before holding, or expecting to hold, the Office—and if it was the pleasure of the House that this duty should be imposed upon him, he had only to assure the House that he should discharge those duties to the best of his ability. They were certainly indebted to his hon. Friend for the great pains he had evidently bestowed in the elaboration of the measure, which had been drawn carefully and well considered, and was not likely to undergo any very material alteration. Subject to certain alterations which he had foreshadowed in the suggestions already offered, he was prepared to assent to the Bill on behalf of the Government.

§ MB. HIBBERT
said, he must oppose the second reading; for he thought it would be unwise and objectionable to pass the Bill in its present form. He had always thought one of the advantages of our system of administration of the criminal law was, that the Government had as little as possible to do with it. If public prosecutors were appointed, they ought to be nominated by the local authorities.

§ MR. EYKYN
said, he would consent that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, as proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General.

§ MR. COLLINS
also desired that the appointment should be made by local authorities; but did not wish that every 246 enterprizing lawyer should make political capital out of an appointment, and therefore the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney General ought to have the power of veto, so that responsible and efficient persons should be appointed.