§ 37. Mr. Alex Carlileasked the Attorney-General what representations he has received regarding giving to an accused person the opportunity to elect to dispense with committal proceedings.
§ The Attorney-GeneralNeither I nor the Home Secretary, who has responsibilty for matters of procedure in magistrates' courts, have received any such representations.
§ Mr. CarlileDoes the Attorney-General agree that if the law were changed in a simple way to allow the accused to elect to dispense with committal proceedings, that would have two dramatic efforts? First, it would shorten the time spent waiting for trial in the Crown court. Secondly, it would reduce significantly the overcrowding in remand prisons such as Her Majesty's remand centre at Risley.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI can see that that course might well lead to an agreeable result, but we must remember that some form of scrutiny is very important before cases get to the Crown court. That is why, even on a paper committal, representations can be made to the magistrates that there is not sufficient evidence for the case to be committed. This system has been criticised in a number of quarters, but at the moment we take the view that it is best left as it is.
§ Mr. AndersonShould we consider not just the fact of scrutiny but the possibility thereby of saving costs, when it is clear that evidence can be tested in committal proceedings?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThat is one of the many aspects that must be considered. A Home Office study, which, if not completed, is almost finished, is examining how we can improve court listing and reduce delays. An important principle is involved. At the moment I am not satisfied that it would be in the interests of the defendant to remove that scrutiny, although, I fear, sometimes it is perfunctory.