§ 39. Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Attorney-General whether he will seek to amend the law of defamation in such a way as to enable all cases to be decided by a judge alone.
§ The Attorney-GeneralNo. I do not think it would be satisfactory to interfere with the well-established principle that a person is entitled to trial by jury where his reputation is in jeopardy.
§ Mr. DavidsonDoes my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the statement of Lord Justice Diplock in a recent case, that the law of defamation is bogged down in a mass of technicalities, and would he agree that, short of getting rid of the technicalities, it is unfair for a jury to have to decide such technicalities?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI observed the remarks which fell from Lord Justice Diplock on that occasion. I have little doubt that this is a matter to which the Law Commission should perhaps give early attention. But under the present arrangements I think that where matters of reputation or questions of fraud are involved most judges take the view that the function of the jury is very important.
§ Mr. HoosonWould the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that from the litigants' point of view it is far better to get rid of the technicalities than to get rid of the jury?
§ The Attorney-GeneralSomebody has described a technicality as a point of principle that he had forgotten about.
§ Mr. CarlisleWould the Attorney-General agree that, in view of the recent increase in the jurisdiction of the county court—now to £500—one might consider 468 looking at the question of starting such actions in the county court?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am not sure that that would be very appropriate. This is a difficult field of the law, and the matters involved of a great seriousness to the parties. I am not sure that I find that a very attractive proposition.