§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in trials for misdemeanour in England, the defendant is allowed to object to jurors as they are called, without showing any cause, till the panel is exhausted (on its first calling); and, whether that practice has been approved by the decision in Reg. v. Blakeman, 3 C and K 97?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)Before I answer this Question, I beg to submit to the House that it is not for the interest or furtherance of the convenience of this House, nor the public interest, that Questions of this kind should be addressed to the Law Officers of the Crown. I am perfectly willing to assist private Members to the utmost of my ability. I do not pretend to be infallible; but, of course, private Members can obtain advice on questions of pure law otherwise than from the Law Offi- 1229 cers. While answering the Question, I respectfully protest against Questions of this kind being put upon the Paper. In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that on trials for misdemeanour in England it is not the practice to allow the defendant to object to jurors, as they are called, without showing any cause, until the panel is exhausted. The defendant has no such right. The only practice of the kind is that if a prisoner, for reasonable cause, intimates to the prosecuting counsel that he has an objection to a particular juror, the prosecuting counsel does, as a rule, consent to the particular juror not being called, or directs the officer of the Court not to call him. This is not done in consequence of any right which exists in the defendant. The practice is a very rare occurrence; and I think I may say that at the Old Bailey it does not occur more than once or twice in some years.
§ MR. CHANCEI would, direct the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that he has not answered the last paragraph of my Question.
§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTERThe practice followed in that case has not been followed in the Criminal Courts of this country.