ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CROWN COURT (Hansard, 7 April 1971)

§ Sir Elwyn Jones
I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 11, at end insert: in which case the said judge of the High Court, circuit judge or Recorder shall preside and his decision on any matter shall be the decision of the court". The Amendment relates to Clause 4, which deals with the composition and powers of the Crown Court when it sits in the City of London. Under the Bill the City of London is put in a special position.
In Committee, concern was expressed about the language in subsection (7) which provides that …the Lord Mayor of the City and any Alderman of the City shall be entitled to sit as judges of the Central Criminal Court with any judge of the High Court or any Circuit judge or Recorder". Use of the phrase "sit as judges" gave rise to some concern because it appeared to place the distinguished gentleman in 534 question on a basis of equality with the judge, with a similar right of participation in discussion and in conduct of the trial and a similar weight in any decision which fell to be made.
The Attorney-General undertook to look at the wording of the subsection. Perhaps he will say something about his further consideration. There was a good deal of criticism in Committee about this special treatment, and it was felt desirable that the position should be made clear, as it is in the Amendment, that it is the judge who presides and his decision should be the decision of the court.

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
At the end of our deliberations in Committee there appeared to be some doubt about this matter which required clarification. It would be absolutely monstrous if, in view of the sort of cases dealt with at the Central Criminal Court, aldermen were to participate in the decisions.
Both on Second Reading and in Committee I expressed my views forcibly about aldermen being on the bench at all, the way in which they dress up, hold posies, and the rest of it. But those arguments have been well explored, and they were rejected by the majority of the Committee.
It seems plain, however, that it would be completely contrary to the interests of the justice if aldermen were to participate in the decision-making of the Crown Court in circumstances where a judge of the High Court, a circuit judge or a recorder presided.
I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. If they do not, perhaps they will at least give us a satisfactory assurance that aldermen will simply be ornamental, if they are to sit on the bench at all.

§ The Attorney-General
As I promised in Committee, I have looked again at Clause 4(7) and also at Clause 4(2), which governs the position under subsection (7). Subsection (7) creates an honorary rôle. It does not entitle aldermen to exercise any of the court's jurisdiction. Subsection (2) sets out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) that jurisdiction is limited to High Court judges, circuit judges and recorders sitting with or without justices of the peace. That is specific and exclusive wording. To show how specific it is, one can compare those words 535 with subsection (3), where a judge of the Court of Appeal may sit and act as a judge of the Crown Court. Those two provisions should be compared with the wording of subsection (7), where the City functionaries are entitled only to sit.
Moreover, by using the words "shall preside", the Amendment must mean that others, namely aldermen, exercise some jurisdiction, and the question would then be, what jurisdiction. They are sitting only because of the centuries-old association with the City. Theirs is a ceremonial rôle rather than a judicial one. The Amendment would blur that by including the word "preside". It is clear that the Lord Mayor and aldermen cannot exercise the jurisdiction of the court, other than that of justices, and the City authorities have no intention of exercising jurisdiction other than that after the Bill has become law.

§ Sir Elwyn Jones
In that case, why was not it sufficient to say that the Lord Mayor and aldermen shall be entitled to sit with any judge of the High Court, or any circuit judge or recorder? The words which trouble us are "sit as judges". Alternatively, if there was a clear intention that theirs should be an honorary rôle, why not say so? I have to warn the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, one of these days, one of those distinguished gentlemen may take that provision seriously.

§ The Attorney-General
He would have no jurisdiction to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman need have no fear. Subsection (2) is the jurisdiction. Subsection (7) creates an honorary rôle, and it is the honorary and ceremonial rôle to which the Lord Mayor and aldermen will be and are willingly restricted.