CRIMINAL LAW ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 13 July 1848)

LORD CAMPBELL
wished to make a few preliminary observations before he moved that the House should resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. This Bill had been sent upstairs to a Select Committee, and some important changes had been made in it. He was extremely anxious that the public should be satisfied that everything had been done which was requisite to perfect this measure. One of the very important questions which came before the Committee was, as to whether in all criminal cases the power should be given of moving for new trials as in civil cases. For his own part, he saw many objections to carrying out this object to the fullest extent; but still it was a matter worthy of serious consideration. The Committee had examined many witnesses who entertained opinions on both sides of the question, from whence the most satisfactory information could he obtained on the subject; and amongst others they had called before them two gentlemen of great learning and ability, who had devoted much attention to the subject—he alluded to Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Mr. Greaves—and they gave it as their opinion, that the same course should be pursued in criminal as in civil cases, and that no judgment or execution should be enforced on any criminal tried until four days after the commencement of the next term, during which period application could he made to one of the courts in Westminster Hall. In such cases the parties, on applying for a new trial, should produce affidavits showing that the witnesses examined on the trial were not worthy of credit, for that further evidence could be produced for the defence; and it was also proposed that the other party might show cause against the rule for the new trial. It was admitted that parties might go on for three or four trials, until a satisfactory verdict was obtained. He (Lord Campbell) need hardly say that under such an arrangement very great delay would arise, and they must 466 bring all the criminals convicted throughout the country up to London. He did not believe that the allegation as to the extent of cases in convictions in criminal law had been substantiated. He did not conceive that it would he necessary to go beyond the provisions on this subject contained in the Bill, namely, to allow an appeal from conviction at quarter-sessions to Judges going the assizes. One of the most learned of the Judges—he meant Mr. Justice Pattison—had authorised him to say, that in the course of his experience, which went to the extent of twenty years, he did not remember any case in which the verdict of guilty was not justified by the evidence. He had also stated that, if applications for new trials were to be made on the ground of the discovery of fresh evidence, it would open the door to fraud and perjury to such an extent as would be utterly ruinous to the administration of justice. It would have the effect of producing numberless false witnesses, and in many cases the prosecutor would be bought off. This opinion of the learned Judge was fully concurred in by two of the most distinguished legal ornaments in this country. He thought after this the House would agree with him in thinking that they went to the proper extent in limiting the appeal from the quarter-sessions to the Judges in Assize to questions of law.

§ LORD DENMAN
said, that he entirely concurred in much that had fallen from his noble and learned Friend. Before, however, he proceeded to advert to what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend, he wished to make a few observations. Probably their Lordships were aware that there was then before the other House of Parliament a Bill to authorise applications for now trials in all criminal cases. He believed that it would be impossible to carry on the proper administration of justice under such a system, nor did he believe that the state of things in any degree justified such a measure. The delay that would be occasioned by the endeavour to carry such a law into effect, would be an immense evil. With respect, however, to the Bill before the House, it was his intention to move the omission of its two first clauses; for if appeals were to be sent to the Judges on every doubtful point of law which might arise at quarter-sessions, it would become a most serious obstruction to the business of the courts. He believed, also, that at present there was no just ground of complaint as regarded points of 467 law in criminal cases, or the decisions at quarter-sessions. He happened to know that the opinions of nearly the whole of the Judges were against the adoption of the proposed plan. [The noble and learned Lord proceeded to read extracts from the evidence of the several Judges examined before the Select Committee on this Bill.] The House would therefore see that almost the unanimous opinion of the Judges was against this Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought that he had said enough to justify him in asking the House not to consent to these clauses. The deliberations ought not to be secret in their nature. Every means should be taken to ensure the acquittal of innocent men; but this should be done consistently with the prevention of impunity to offenders through technical points, when all the world saw that they were guilty. Those who beheld the law thus defeated, had their minds most injuriously affected with regard to its administration.

LORD BROUGHAM
said, he entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend who had just spoken. An opinion had prevailed for a long time, especially in the other House of Parliament, that the criminal law of this country was very defective, and that prisoners tried for offences were often ill-used through having no power of appeal. It was a great mistake to suppose that it was possible to apply the same rule in criminal as in civil suits; and he could never agree with Sir F. Kelly that in criminal cases there ought to be a new trial. If the criminal law was to be administered, their Lordships could not adopt the proposal under consideration. Any one who examined the practical details of the subject, whatever had been his previous prejudices, must rise from the perusal with a complete conviction that the question was not one at the option or discretion of the Legislature. In order to carry out the proposal, it would be necessary to double the year, to double the number of Judges, and to have judicial sittings in July as well as in November. There was not a single power exercised by the Court of Cassation in France, which was not exercised in a Court of Error in this country. He admitted that the Bill was in some respects an improvement on the present practice; but he entirely concurred with his noble and learned Friend in wishing to omit the first two clauses.

LORD CAMPBELL
said, he could not accede to the Amendment.

LORD CAMPBELL
said, that it was proposed to enact that there should be an appeal from the courts of assize and from the Central Criminal Court, where the Judges of the land presided, to another tribunal, which was to be constituted of a selection from all the Judges. The necessity for such a tribunal was admitted; the only question was, whether or not there should be a similar tribunal to decide the difficult questions which arose in the courts of quarter-sessions. Many difficult questions undoubtedly arose in these courts, and, primâ facie, it appeared that on questions which concerned the liberty of the subject, the power of appeal should exist. The parties who presided at quarter-sessions were gentlemen who, devoting their leisure to the service of the country, performed their duties with great diligence, and with benefit to society; but surely they were not more deserving of trust, or less liable to error, than the Judges of the land, who had received a regular professional education, and were intimately acquainted with the law. During the time that he (Lord Campbell) held the office of Attorney General, the practice, when difficult questions arose, was for the chairman of the quarter-sessions to write to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary then consulted the Attorney and Solicitor General; and if their opinions were in favour of the prisoner, he was pardoned; if against him, the sentence was executed. He could not consider that a satisfactory mode of proceeding. It was generally considered one of the imperfections of the court of quarter-sessions that there was no appeal whatever in criminal cases. Both Mr. Baron Parke and Mr. Baron Alderson had frequently expressed to him their entire approbation of giving the same right of appeal from that court as existed in the case of the courts of assize. The noble Lord then referred to the evidence of a learned Serjeant, who had for many years filled the office of chairman of the court of quarter-sessions for Sussex; and of another legal gentleman, who had been chairman of a similar court in Gloucestershire, both of whom were in favour of appeal; and the former stated that he had little apprehension of the appeals being inconveniently numerous. The great evil which he (Lord Campbell) wished to remove was the circumstance of a man's re- 469 maining at present a convicted felon, even though it turned out that he had been improperly found guilty.