§ Mr. Russell JohnstonI beg to move amendment No. 165, in page 23, line 10 at end add
'and following such appointment, the court shall allow a reasonable adjournment to enable the counsel or solicitor so appointed to take instruction from the accused.'.This is not what might be called a tremendous, earth-shattering amendment. The Minister might say that it is superfluous on the grounds that this would, in any event, happen. In my time in the House I have always been told by my legal friends that one should not assume, in drafting a law, that people will behave in a reasonable fashion, but that the law should specifically say what they do. Otherwise, there will be awkward people who will not do it.There is some question about the need for this clause at all. It is, presumably, prima facie a bad thing to proceed with a trial in the absence of the accused. If the accused does not have legal representation and legal representation has to be appointed for him, I would have thought it right and proper and clear beyond a peradventure that there should be an opportunity for the solicitor so appointed to be able to consult the accused.
§ Mr. RifkindI am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that there is an inherent right at common law for the court to grant such an adjournment whenever it considers it reasonable. There is no doubt, in the circumstances that this clause envisages, that the court would exercise that right. It would not be an entirely new situation. There have been, over the years, the situation where either the accused has decided to dispense with his legal representative in the course of a trial or, he having not been represented and having represented himself until a certain stage, he has expressed a desire to have a legal representative.
There have been many occasions on which this has happened. I cannot think of a single occasion when a court would not have granted a reasonable adjournment to allow instructions to be given. The court has this right and there is not the slightest question of its not 613 being exercised. Although I cannot prove it, I suspect that if a court refused to exercise that right that would be substantial grounds for appeal after any subsequent conviction. I am sure that the interests of the accused are properly safeguarded.
§ Mr. Russell JohnstonI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.