COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. (Hansard, 17 April 1907)

§ *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,) Leeds, S.

I have to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill for the constitution of a Court of Criminal Appeal, and for extending the powers of our tribunals to review convictions on indictment for criminal offences. It is proposed to end a controversy which at recurrent intervals for sixty years has engaged the attention of Parliament. The settlement which I invite the House to adopt will create appellate rights against convictions for 1009 crime, similar to those which exist in relation to adverse verdicts in civil causes. Liberty will thus be put upon an equality with property, and the consequences of judicial miscarriage will receive in each case similar protection. The administration of our criminal law has attained its present unsurpassed reputation in spite of defects of procedure which are irreconcilable with the acknowledged principles of all sound jurisprudence. Various mitigating causes have tended to obviate the defective operation of an imperfect system. The generous bias of our courts towards the innocent until they have been shown to be guilty; the conscientious solicitude and high character of our Judges, and the tempering jurisdiction of the Home Office have done much to accomplish this result. But justice has blundered. Innocent men have been convicted, and the number of the victims of judicial miscarriage during the last few years has not been inconsiderable. This question, owing to recent incidents and developments, has been forced to the front. The Royal Commission recently reported that the resources of the Home Office were neither adequate nor satisfactory. The admissibility of the evidence of an accused person in his own behalf, tainted as it often is by falsehood in regard to collateral matters, tending to prejudice a good case and to confuse the issues to be tried, makes the conduct of criminal trials more difficult. Public sympathy in recent striking instances has been aroused by the misfortunes of men who have been called upon to suffer that most terrible form of moral torture which confounds the innocent with the guilty, and condemns them to a common fate. An enterprising Press has rushed in where jurists have feared to tread, and retrial by newspaper threatens to take the place which ought to be occupied by the process of rehearing before a judicial tribunal. Last, but not least, the delicate and difficult duties of the Home Secretary have been discharged under the pressure of public agitation, which has made calm and independent judgment well-nigh impossible. These considerations have led the Government to the conclusion that the time for some change has arrived. Last year a Bill was introduced by the Lord Chancellor and passed through the House of Lords, which will, I trust, ever associate his name honourably with this great change in our jurisprudence. The 1010 present measure, differs in material respects from that which then passed through the other House. In its present form, I trust it will not meet with those hostile Motions which threatened the introduction of its predecessor. I have given careful consideration to the criticisms, many of them most able and cogent, which have reached me from many quarters, and I trust that I shall be able to count former opponents of the measure among its present friends. The Court will be constituted of seven Judges of the King's Bench Division, selected and presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of England. They will be invited to undertake the duties arising under this legislation, in addition to the functions which they now discharge. The right to appeal in matters of law will be unqualified; in matters of fact it will take place with the leave of the Court of Appeal. This proposal revives an ancient procedure, and it is attended by this great advantage, that the Court will be able to prevent the abuse of its process by the raising of unfounded and frivolous contentions. There will be no new trial. The scandals to justice, which must very often occur on the retrial of a criminal cause, will not happen in consequence of the provisions of this measure, and the accused person will be spared an ordeal which is consequent upon no misconduct on his part. The Court will have ample powers to get at the truth. They will be able, if necessary, to summon fresh evidence. When they have satisfied themselves, so far as they can, of the true merits of the case before them, it will be their duty to determine whether the conviction should stand, should be set aside, or should be modified, and whether the sentence which is challenged should remain as it was pronounced, or should be brought into harmony with principles of general application, by which the duration of the punishment is made to correspond with the gravity of the crime. This is not a rich man's Bill. It was said that the last measure possessed that character. It will not be said of this Bill. An official is appointed whose duty it will be to obtain the materials which it is necessary to place before the Court for the consideration of the petition of every appellant; and if professional assistance be required a solicitor and counsel will be appointed to argue his case. This 1011 Bill differs from the last in one respect which will be appreciated by my legal friends who are Members of this House. The machinery will not be left to be framed by ex post facto regulations. It is substantially embodied in the Bill itself, and the whole history of the litigation may be reviewed from beginning to end. A Rule Committee will be appointed, which will have power either to complete or to modify or amplify the procedure prescribed as experience may dictate. The Court of Crown Cases Reserved will have its jurisdiction transferred to this tribunal, but the economic and excellent machinery in connection with that tribunal will remain untouched. The prerogative of the Crown will be unaffected, but the Secretary of State will have the inestimable advantage of being able to take the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal upon any question on which his advice to the Sovereign may depend. This is the measure which I would like the House to consider. It is a non-Party Bill. I am sanguine enough to believe it will be non-contentious also. Notwithstanding, in my humble opinion, it yields to none in the order of its importance. It affects immediately and possibly for all time the administration of justice in that sphere of its operations in which it touches the defence of personal security, which is the absolute condition of individual happiness and welfare on the part of every member of the community throughout all classes of our population. I beg to move.