HC Deb 26 April 1967 vol 745 cc1626-37

() Where a magistrates' court acting as examining justices commits any person for trial or determines to discharge him, the clerk of the court shall, on the day on which the committal proceeding are concluded or the next day, cause to be displayed in a part of the court house to which the public have access a notice—

  1. (a) in either case giving that person's name address, and age (if known);
  2. (b) in a case where the court so commits him, stating the charge or charges on which he is committed and the court to which he is committed;
  3. (c) in a case where the court dismisses the charge, describing the offence charged and stating that it has dismissed the charge. —[Mr. Taverne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, the proposed Amendment to the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), at the end to insert: (2) A notice giving the name, address and age (if known) of every person appointed to be brought up before magistrates or summoned to appear before them on information laid and of the person or persons laying the information, and stating briefly the offence or offences charged, shall be caused to be displayed by the Clerk of the Court before the hearing on the day on which it is appointed in a part of the court house to which the public have access.

Mr. Taverne

The effect of the Clause is to require a magistrates' court to post up a notice at the conclusion of committal proceedings stating their result. The courts are not normally under any obligation to announce the results of their proceedings in this manner, but there are special features about Clause 3 which seem to the Government to make it desirable to have a provision ready for this purpose. The provision is confined to committal proceedings and does not cover trials.

Earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met a number of representatives of the Press, who pointed out various difficulties that would arise in the day-to-day operations of the Press as a result of the Clause. It must be accepted that some newspapers will find it difficult to send reporters to record committal proceedings if they cannot publish the reports of them at once. The result may well be that there will be less coverage of the results of these proceedings.

The object of Clause 3 is to prevent the evidence at committal proceedings from being published before the trial, but it is no part of the purpose of the Government that the results of committal proceedings should not be known at once. Indeed, Clause 3 (4) permits the facts of particular proceedings to be reported. The Government are anxious to reduce the difficulties of the Press in this matter to the minimum and it seemed to us, therefore, that there would be advantage in having a provision in the Bill under which a public notice was posted of the results of committal proceedings.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck (Colchester)

While many hon. Members welcome the inclusion of the new Clause in the Bill, some of us are not happy about the position of the Press in relation to the restrictions being placed on the reporting of committal proceedings. However, we will be discussing that matter at a later stage. Suffice to say that we should do everything we can to facilitate the working of the Press, remembering that the Press has done a great deal for the cause of justice in the magistrates' courts and elsewhere for very many years.

My experience in the courts leads me to believe that there has rarely been a breach of an undertaking about publication. I am sure that that is the experience of most hon. Members. Generally speaking, when an undertaking has been given by the Press, or when a suggestion has been made about it being inappropriate for something to be reported, the Press has kept its word. I am grateful for that, and that fact should make us particularly concerned to do everything possible in the Bill to facilitate the easy reporting of what the Press is still to be allowed to report. For that reason, I welcome the Clause.

As drafted, the Clause provides for the publication of the results of committal proceedings. Is it anticipated that there will be any obligation to publish the facts of an adjournment to another date in cases where that occurs? If that were done the Press would know what is happening and could keep tabs on the progress of cases. I understand that there is no obligation for this to be done under the Clause as drafted and I trust that the Home Secretary will give further thought to this matter.

The Amendment which stands in my name provides for an extension of the duty of the servants of magistrates' courts to make further facts known. It is envisaged in the Amendment that, at the start of every court day, there shall be published a list—rather like the calendar which is at present published—stating …the name, address and age (if known) of every person … to be brought before magistrates … stating briefly the offence or offences charged … Although I am grateful that the Amendment has been selected, I am aware that its wording may be faulty in certain respects. However, the idea is there; that there should be available to the Press each day a list setting out what is to be done, very much like the calendar that is published at the moment.

The principle of the Amendment would seem to be a reasonable one. I understand from friends of the Press that the Press has from time to time found difficulty in getting from magistrates' courts a calendar or list of the cases which are to be disposed of on a particular day. It is no: unreasonable that a magistrates' court should provide such a daily list. This would facilitate the working of the Press arid I hope that the Government will consider it appropriate to do something of this nature, perhaps by administrative direction.

The only reticence I have about the Amendment and the Clause is that it places a marginal additional burden on the staffs of magistrates' courts. I hope that the Government will give an indication of the staffing position of these courts. I understand that great burdens have been placed on them recently, because of the increased number of cases they must handle and the procedural changes that have been made. However, while the Amendment would add a small additional burden, I hope that the Government will accept the principle of it.

Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde)

What, under the Clause, would be the effect of failure to comply? Would failure to publish such a notice have any effect on the validity of the court's proceedings?

I support the Amendment, which would be of considerable assistance to the Press, and I hope that the Government will accept the principle involved—perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) suggested, by adopting an administrative method of enforcing it.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davis (Isle of Thanet)

I agree with everything that has been said about the new Clause and the Amendment. I also support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). I rise merely to point out that the Press will still be empowered to report cases which are not for committal and which, in the outcome, will be tried in the petty sessional courts.

I hope that in listing the cases which will be dealt with at each day's hearing—and this is now important in all criminal courts, but particularly in petty sessional courts—this will be done to show those cases which it is proposed to take for committal and those not so taken. The Press will then be in a position to see what is likely to happen during the day and be able to make their arrangements accordingly.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill upstairs, although I have read the Committee's proceedings with interest and instruction. I anticipate—although I will be happy if someone will inform me that I am wrong —what will be the effect of the Amendment.

The Home Secretary has done the House proud. I am grateful to him for having tabled many of the new Clauses which appear on the Notice Paper, but we have not had very long in which to study their effects. This Clause deals with a vexed question and in considering the matter one's views are bound to go one way and then the other. The Amendment to it appears to seek to have the worst of both worlds, unless I have misunderstood it.

This is my understanding of the Amendment: a man is charged with having committed an offence in a public urinal in connection with someone of the same sex and in circumstances which are familiar to us from our reading, if not from our personal experience. As I understand, he is charged with an offence in respect of which he can be committed for trial, and he may say, "I desire that the committal proceedings shall not be reported". He can then elect to go for trial, when the matter will be challenged.

During the course of the case—and I believe that this type of thing will often happen—the magistrate may say, "We are not going to commit. There is no evidence against this man. We do not believe what is said by the other person who was wandering around in this urinal". If, at that stage, under the Amendment, the man, having been completely acquitted, has his name bunged up on a notice board for all the public to see with what he has been charged with—

Mr. Buck

No. That is not the position.

Mr. Hale

I apologise if I am wrong. I should still like to be told why I am wrong in the terms of the Clause, which states: Where a magistrates' court acting as examining justices commits any person for trial or determines to discharge him, the clerk of the court shall, on the day on which the committal proceedings are concluded or the next day, cause to be displayed in a part of the court house to which the public have access a notice—

  1. (a) in either case giving that person's name, address, and age (if known);
  2. (b) in a case where the court so commits him, stating the charge or charges on which he is committed and the court to which he is committed;
  3. (c) in a case where the court dismisses the charge, describing the offence charged and stating that it has dismissed the charge."
That is what is on the Notice Paper. I always listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marlyebone (Mr. Hogg) with respect and attention, and almost invariable disagreement, but that is how it seems to me to be.

It seems a little tragic. The whole of the publicity comes out at the time when it is a little too late to trouble to collect or publish—or have the right to publish —all the facts in the man's favour that induced the court to dismiss the charge, or the collapse of the prosecution evidence is not reported, and all the public know is that this man may have had a narrow escape from conviction of an offence that used to be regarded as infamous and which is not apt to win popularity in society even today—

Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

There is the effect of the new Clause and the terms of Clause 3 of the Bill. As I understand it, the new Clause merely states that certain particulars shall be pinned up in the magistrates' court after the case has been heard. In the case the hon. Gentleman has given, if the magistrates dismiss the charge the Press are already entitled under Clause 3 to publish all the facts of the evidence.

Mr. Hale

I thought not, on committal.

Mr. Carlisle

Yes, if the magistrates dismiss the case.

Mr. Hale

Perhaps I may just finish reading Clause 3 to myself, on my feet. I apologise for doing so, but I may be saving the time of the House, having wasted it. I understood that on the com- mittal charge the defendant himself could opt to say that the matter should not be reported—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"] In view of the unanimity of the House, and the obvious fact that I could not carry my views to the Division Lobby with any substantial prospect of defeating the Government, I shall sit down—but I am still not convinced.

Mr. Hogg

I should like to press on the Government the proposed Amendment to the new Clause—not that I think it is worth a Division if it is not granted, but I hope that it will be granted in principle. I should also like to say what I understand is the effect of all this once it is done.

If an indictable charge is dismissed, the proceedings are open. The Press may report the case. I am saying this in order that the Minister may correct me if I am wrong, because it should be clearly understood, not only by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) but others whose duties it may be to report or not to report the proceedings. If an indictable charge is dismissed by the magistrates, at that stage the proceedings are open and everything may be reported as is provided by the particulars in the new Clause. The witnesses' evidence, the cross-examination, any reasons which may be given, counsel's speeches—all will be as open as they are now. It is only when an indictable charge is committed that, subject to the provisions of Clause 3, as now drafted, the reporting is restricted.

As I understand it, by this Clause the right hon. Gentleman is doing something for the convenience of the Press. First of all, in the event of a committal—and I think that the Clause is rather inelegantly drafted, and that it is the inelegance of the drafting which has misled the hon. Member for Oldham, West—the Press have an authentic copy of what may be reported, and where they are subjected to this restriction. It is a safeguard for the Press that the court should be under an obligation to give them what they need. I understand that to be the broad effect of the Clause.

That being the main effect, it is rather inelegant to put. in paragraph (c), what happens when the court dismisses the charge. It is because of that inelegance that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has, if I may say so, misunderstood the total effect of the new Clause when read with Clause 3. I am not quite sure why paragraph (c) is included, and perhaps we should be told, but that is the fountain and the origin—

Mr. Hale

I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I really am not trying to make an academic point. One has some experience of Press reporting at petty sessions. Are the Press to stop there, taking notes for two or three days in anticipation that something may happen that will enable them to publish? Or is not the fact, whether or not I misread the drafting—and I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his generous defence which, impromptu, I thought was very kind of him—that the Press will keep away for three days while the committal proceedings are being decided, and then pop in to say that Alderman Jones, of a certain council, was that day found not guilty of sexuality in this famous urinal?

Mr. Hogg

To answer that question would take me rather far beyond the rules of order. It would be much more in order to answer it when discussing some Amendments to Clause 3 itself rather than when we are discussing the new Clause.

All I was seeking to do was to disabuse the mind of the hon. Member for Oldham, West about the effect of the new Clause. I did so very largely to pave the way for saying two sentences in support of my hon. Friend's proposed Amendment.

That Amendment has merits, although it goes well beyond the Clause. It is designed to help the Press really to understand what summary offences are about. The Clause deals with indictable offences but the Amendment extends beyond that. My right hon. and hon. Friends thought that to provide official, authentic material for the Press, as laid out in the proposed Amendment, would be of real assistance to the Press and, in fact, some protection to them in the case of a possible action for defamation based on the reporting of details which might be inadequately gleaned from some other source. We think that this is an advantage. We know that it puts some additional burden on the court, but we wonder whether the Home Secretary and his colleagues will not give this proposal careful consideration in view of the fact that there is a good deal of misgiving generally in the Press about the restriction in reporting of indictable offences.

I would commend the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's sympathetic consideration, bearing in mind the fact that whatever we may think about trials by jury, out of 220,000 indictable cases in the most recent year I have seen, 197,500 were dealt with summarily and would therefore not come within the committal proceedings at all but would be treated as summary offences.

Mr. Grieve

In view of what has been said so far I rise with some temerity, but I welcome the new Clause and, at the same time, support the proposed Amendment. There has been a great deal of criticism throughout the country of Clauses that are designed to ensure that publicity shall not be given to committal proceedings before the justices. That is a very controversial proposition. The effect of the Clause and of my hon. Friend's Amendment will at least be to enable the Press to be absolutely certain of where they stand as to what they may or may not report. It will to some extent, at any rate, counteract what I believe to be the vice of the silencing of the Press in committal proceedings. The vice is that where truth is not known rumour flies and lies abroad.

If this new Clause and the Amendment go through, the Press will know in advance what cases are coming before a magistrates' court and they can take notes. Then afterwards they can see what has been the result of every case and see what they may report and what they may not report. For those reasons I hope the House will support my hon. Friend's Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)

I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment. I agree with the criticism made by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in regard to paragraph (c) in the new Clause. I do not know why that is included. It is quite true that under the Clause adopting its provisions, the nature of the offence could be stated, but I cannot see why the offence charged should be mentioned in the notice.

However, the Amendment makes it worse, because it prescribes that the day before the hearing takes place a full description shall be given of the person laying the information and the nature of the offence. That itself might give rise to rumours and could certainly reflect on the accused person quite unnecessarily.

Mr. Taverne

First, I shall answer a few questions posed about the effect of the Amendment. I was asked whether adjournments could also be published and how would anyone know that there had been an adjournment? Of course, people would know that there had been an adjournment when they did not see a result. There is not quite the same public interest in an adjournment and not the same need for the identity to be published.

I was asked about the effect of noncompliance with the new Clause. I have not had time to consider this fully, but if courts did not conform with statutory duties there are powers which can be used to make them conform or a writ of mandamus might lie.

Mr. Buck

It is not fair to the Press to say that the Press can find whether there has been an adjournment. It is a little thing to ask that the fact should be published that there has been an adjournment. It would be a great help to the Press to know to what day the case has been adjourned and so forth.

Mr. Taverne

The Press could obviously find the date to which the case had been adjourned, but there is not the same requirement and we want to make the burden put on the courts as small as possible. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), the explanation given by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) about a dismissal of a charge is correct.

I was asked why paragraph (c) has been added to the new Clause. There are a number of reasons why it should be in the Clause. In the first place, if we oblige courts to post up a notice that there has been a committal, we should oblige them to post a notice if there is no committal. In certain cases where there has been considerable publicity in connection with the original charge it is reasonable that there should be publicity to show that there has been a dismissal of the charge. That would be in the public interest.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) asked me to consider the Amendment. As he said, wider issues arising under Clause 3 can be discussed later when we come to other Amendments. I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment. We realise that the Press faces certain difficulties under Clause 3. The Amendment goes much wider than the new Clause as it deals with all criminal proceedings in magistrates' courts, not only cases of committal to which at present Clause 3 applies, and not only does it ask for the identity and charges to be posted up but also the age and address of the person concerned and other details. That is going rather far.

Over the years the Press has persistently represented that in many magistrates' courts reporters have had difficulty in obtaining in advance the kind of information which they should have. They have had particular difficulty in getting the addresses of witnesses stated in open court where they would attract privilege if by mischance the addresses were wrongly reported. Charge sheets for the information of officials and Press representatives are made available, but the forms vary considerably from court to court. Some give the names only, some the names and the towns, but comparatively few give both the names and home addresses. There are complaints by the Press that all are subject to error.

On the privilege question, which, perhaps, is the most important, this Amendment does not cure the difficulty, because a notice of the day's business is no part of the proceedings and would not attract privilege. I have had the advantage of a talk with the Chairman of the Press Council on this point and it was agreed that we should send out a circular to all the clerks of the magistrates' courts, asking that where addresses are given in evidence the courts should reconsider their practice. That circular will be issued. The Chairman of the Press Council agreed with the terms of the circular and expressed satisfaction that it should be sent out. That would be an administrative direction of the kind which the hon. Member sought and would cure the main difficulty which the Press has to meet today.

If we went on to ask for other matters to be published we would be imposing a considerable burden on the courts. Legislation should impose precise obligations and one of the difficulties is that the defendant's address would have to be given on the notice, but a court does not always have a complete and accurate information of the address. It would have to be the last known address which might not necessarily be the current home address. The legislation would have to apply to all proceedings and would cover all the numerous minor traffic offences which come before magistrates' courts. This would mean that in certain cases in large towns the courts would have to post up hundreds of names.

It is true that most courts prepare for their own purposes certain lists, but they do not go so far as to include all the particulars asked for. To provide all those particulars on the notice would mean imposing a very considerable extra burden on magistrates' courts staffs. It would be quite a different problem from the case the hon. Member mentioned of quarter sessions and assizes where there are much fewer cases. Where there were hundreds of parking offence cases to deal with, a considerable burden would be imposed.

We want to give the Press all reasonable help. The new Clause will assist considerably and I think that the circular of administrative direction will assist in the most important respect. In view of the administrative direction being issued, I hope that the hon. Member for Colchester will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Buck

As I explained, I have no power to press the Amendment because it has not been selected for a Division. I am grateful to the hon. and learned