§ 37. Mr. BaldryTo ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the number of appeals against conviction made to the Court of Appeal in the last five years, the number that have been allowed and the number that have been refused.
§ The Attorney-GeneralFrom 1 January 1985 to 30 September 1989 the total number of applications for leave to appeal against conviction received by the Court of Appeal was 7,964. A total of 2,179 appeals against conviction were considered by the court and of those 878–40.3 per cent.—were allowed in full or in part and 1,301 were dismissed.
§ Mr. BaldryDoes my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the criminal courts and the Court of Appeal can act only on the basis of the admissible evidence before them? Over the centuries the courts have worked painstakingly on admissibility and on the law of evidence to ensure that the best interests of the defendant are served. In those circumstances does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who are urging some sort of new tier in addition to the Court of Appeal, whether it is a people's court or something similar, simply do not understand the nature of the criminal court system or the painstaking efforts that are now taken by trial judges and by the Court of Appeal to act in the best interests of fairness and justice?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI agree very much with my hon. Friend. I have greatly regretted some rather loose imputations that have been made against the courts in the light of recent events. I say that without commenting in one way or another upon the events with which the House has already been concerned this afternoon. The Court of Appeal deals with such matters in a most conscientious way and the work is extremely arduous. I can only suggest to those who are minded to make adverse imputations about the way in which the Court of Appeal does its work that they should go to watch that court at work.
§ Mr. SedgemoreIf it is true, as we have just heard, that, over the centuries, the judges have been arduous in t pursuit of justice, how does the Attorney-General explain the actions of Judge Jeffreys after the battle of Sedgemoor?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI do not know how many centuries we are going back, but I would be happy, with the hon. Gentleman, to compare the record of this country's judiciary, century for century and in the light of contemporary standards, with that of any judiciary of any other country in the world. One interesting thing that. I find extremely reassuring is the way in which people who live in other civilised countries speak of our judiciary and police force and about how they feel very much safer in this country than anywhere else.
§ Mr. LawrenceFurther to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), is he aware that in only six cases in the past 20 years has the Court of Appeal quashed a conviction because it was not satisfied with the jury's verdict? Would it not be better for public confidence in the ability of the Court of Appeal to correct miscarriages of justice if the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 were amended so that the court had to satisfy itself on the evidence that the jury's verdict 673 was correct, as was recommended by a recent Justice committee report chaired by a former Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir George Waller?
§ The Attorney-GeneralMy hon. and learned Friend could well make that interesting suggestion, if he were so minded, to Sir John May's inquiry which has the widest possible terms of reference.