§ 61. Mr. Silvermanasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Francis Charles Haggard, recently heard by the Gloucester City Quarter Sessions, where during the committal proceedings the prosecution was conducted by the justices' clerk, who subsequently, during the hearing, advised the court on disputed questions as to the admissibility of evidence 2066 tendered by himself and then accompanied the justices when they retired to consider their decision; will he inquire in how many other courts the clerk is permitted to appear as an advocate in his own court and at the same time advise that court; and what steps he will take to bring these irregularities to an end?
§ Sir S. HoareI apologise for the length of this answer. Though I am not responsible for the conduct of clerks to justices, who are the servants of the justices by whom they are appointed, I have made inquiry and am informed by the clerk that it is erroneous to say the prosecution was conducted by him. The prosecutor was a police constable who was present in court. The defendant, as was his right, elected to be tried by jury, and it then became the duty of the examining justices to take the depositions. For this purpose the clerk states that, by direction of the court, he examined in chief the witnesses called by the police informant. If, by the reference to evidence "tendered" by the clerk, the hon. Member has in mind evidence elicited by the clerk, I am informed that the statement on which the question of the admissibility of evidence arose was a statement made in reply to a question asked by the defending solicitor. It is, of course, one of the duties of clerks to advise the justices as to the admissibility of evidence. At the close of the case the justices retired with the clerk in order to consider whether a prima facie case had been made out to commit the defendant for trial.
It would, of course, be quite improper for a clerk to act as advocate before his justices; such conduct would conflict with the rule that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The clerk, however, informs me that he did not so act. On the question whether it is right that when taking depositions the clerk should base his questions on statements taken by the police from witnesses for the prosecution, I understand that the practice differs in different courts, and that the practice followed in this case is criticised in several quarters. It is a matter for consideration whether any advice could properly be given to courts on this question, but this is only one of several questions relating to the work of clerks to justices which require consideration. I had already decided to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into 2067 the methods of appointment and conditions of service of clerks to justices, and certain questions of principle raised by this case will fall within the terms of reference of that committee.
§ Mr. SilvermanWhile thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his very full and careful answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that this clerk, besides examining witnesses, also, when the case was committed for trial, was the solicitor who instructed counsel for the prosecution; whether in that case it is not true that the clerk would have a financial interest of his own in advising the court to commit for trial; whether it is not a fact that, when the case came on for trial, the jury acquitted the accused without calling upon him for any defence whatever; and whether the Recorder, who conducted the trial at the quarter sessions, did not describe the whole proceedings in the court below as full of serious irregularities?
§ Sir S. HoareIt is a fact that the clerk concerned did instruct counsel in the case before the quarter sessions. There is a difference of practice, so I am informed, between petty sessions in the county districts and petty sessions in towns, and that is one of the questions which I hope will be considered by the Departmental Committee to which I have referred. The hon. Gentleman is also correct in saying that the defendant at quarter sessions was acquitted, and that the Recorder made some critical comments upon the earlier proceedings.