HC Deb 30 June 1932 vol 267 cc2066-8

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 32, leave out Sub-section (1) and insert: (1) When a juvenile court have remanded a child or young person for information to be obtained with respect to him, any juvenile court acting for the same petty sessional division or place—

  1. (a) may in his absence extend the period for which he is remanded, so, however, that he appears before a court or a justice at least once in every twenty-one days;
  2. (b) when the required information has been obtained may deal with him finally;
and where the court by whom he was originally remanded have recorded a finding that he is guilty of an offence charged against him, it shall not be necessary for any court who subsequently deal with him under this subsection to hear evidence as to the commission of that offence except in so far as they may consider that such evidence will assist them in determining the manner in which he should be dealt with.

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

6.0 p.m.

The difference which this Amendment makes in the Sub-section as we passed it in this House is that whereas before, after the remand, the young offender had to come back to the court as originally constituted, it will now be possible for him to come back to a court otherwise constituted. The hon. Member for West-houghten (Mr. Rhys Davies) will remember that it was a subject which we discussed in Committee, and I held then, as I still hold, that theoretically it is right that the court which hears the evidence and finds the evidence proved should also be the court which finally determines the decision and the sentence. It is rather theoretical, because the new court before which the young offender appears for decision can, of course, go over the evidence again. Still, theoretically, I think that the decision which we took in Committee was right. Technically, however, it has been pointed out to us that extraordinary difficulties will arise in rural areas in always having exactly the same court constituted., and that possibly the adherence to theoretical perfection may mean intolerable delay in the remanding of the young person before you can constitute exactly the same court, which will then be in a position to finish the case.

In those circumstances I think that we had better abandon theoretical perfection and accept the Amendment. [Interruption.] The new court before it actually came to its decision could ask for certain evidence over again or could have statements made. It would not, of course, restore the position that they would be exactly the same people who heard all the evidence when the case was first tried. It has a practical advantage and may lead to boys being kept in remand for a longer period, and as the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, I move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."