§ 25. Captain Kerbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue to all benches of magistrates a memorandum explaining their rights and duties in respect of sittings in open court and the hearing of evidence in camera, and pointing out in particular that, even if the court is cleared for the hearing of evidence, they may not refuse to disclose the name of the accused, the details of the charge, or the decision at which they arrive.
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeNo, Sir. I have no reason to suppose that justices are not aware of the relevant statutory provisions. The effect of these provisions is that justices are normally required to sit in open court when trying criminal charges against adults. They are expressly relieved from this obligation when sitting as examining justices—that is, when they are considering, in an indictable case, whether there is a prima facie case for committing the accused for trial—but so far as I know, they sit in private only in exceptional circumstances. I am not aware of any provision which compels the disclosure of 2229 particulars of the accused, the charge, and the justices' decision, but I have no reason to think that on the rare occasions when examining justices might think it necessary to sit in private they would in general refuse to disclose this information.
§ Captain KerbyIs my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of the public concern caused recently in West Sussex by the action of the Littlehampton Magistrates——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to attack a particular decision of a bench of magistrates he should put down a Motion to that effect.
§ Mr. H. HyndIs the Minister aware that justices in general are well aware of their duties and responsibilities, and are kept fully informed by their own organisation—the Magistrates' Association?