LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH,who had given notice "To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the case of a prisoner charged with a serious crime in regard to which the jury were unable to agree on a verdict; and whether it is the case that a period of five months must elapse before any further trial can take place," said: My Lords, I think, perhaps, a word of explanation is due from me in putting this Question as it now appears on the Paper. I had my attention called to a report of a criminal trial about three weeks ago, in which the jury disagreed as to their verdict, and the Judge ordered that the prisoner should be detained in custody until the next Assizes, which were five months off. I therefore put this Question on the Paper to ascertain whether that was an absolutely necessary incident in the regulation of the criminal procedure of this country.
316 Sofar as the particular case is concerned, the matter is practically at an end. I would have brought the Question before your Lordships at once, but I was twice asked—most properly asked—by the Department concerned to postpone it as the matter was under consideration. Your Lordships have since been informed, through the usual channels of information, that the criminal authorities have come to the conclusion that there is no case for a further prosecution, and the prisoner has been released. Therefore, so far as any particular personal incident is concerned the matter is at an end; but there was a good deal of attention attracted to the point as to whether it was necessary to detain a prisoner for so long a period before a second trial could be obtained.
I may be wrong, but I understand that there were two courses open to the learned Judge who presided at the trial—either to have ordered another trial later in the Assizes, or to take the course which, in the exercise of his discretion, he took, of ordering the prisoner's detention till another term of Assizes. In Scotland there is a power in the Crown to move the venue, and there is also a power on the part of the prisoner, by a process known as "running his letters," to secure a trial within a certain number of days. All I want now to ask is whether, in the unfortunate event of a jury disagreeing in their verdict, it is ever likely to be necessary in England to detain a prisoner for so long a period as five or six months before another trial can be obtained. If that is so, it is a point to which the attention of those responsible ought to be directed with a view to diminishing the possibility of such an occurrence taking place.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)My Lords, so far as the particular case in question is concerned, I understand, as the noble Lord has said, that the Attorney-General has entered a nolle prosequi. It is a matter which rests entirely in his own discretion, and I imagine that no Attorney-General would listen to anyone who attempted to interfere with his discretion in the administration of criminal justice.
317 The case was one relating to murder, and the peculiarity is that that is one of the crimes which cannot be tried otherwise than by a Judge of the High Court, or by a Commissioner of Assize, or somebody holding His Majesty's Commission entitling him to try the case. Murder cases, fortunately, are not very common, and the disagreement of juries is, likewise, not very common. The Judge, in the exercise of his discretion, said that this case was to go over to the next assizes. In view of the fact that the Attorney-General has since entered a nolle prosequi, it is pretty obvious that this course was adopted because the Judge thought the man ought not to be put on his trial again and that the Crown had better drop the prosecution. I infer that from the circumstances.
The learned Judge could, if he had wished, have tried the case again at once, or he could have tried it at the end of the assizes, or a new Commission might have been issued, if it had been necessary, for trying the case at any time. There is also a power under Act of Parliament by which the Attorney-General can move a case to the Central Criminal Court. I do not wish to prejudge the point, and I must not be understood as expressing the definite opinion that that procedure would have been applicable to the case in question, but, at all events, there is the statute. No one feels more strongly than I that it is in the highest degree inexpedient that persons awaiting trial should be confined for any considerable length of time.
In the ordinary kind of cases, where it is not a serious matter like that of murder, I think there ought to be a far more liberal admission to bail than there is at present in this country. I cannot too strongly express that view. As a matter of fact, it is impossible for many people to escape if they wanted to, and the great majority of people who are accused have no means or thought of escape. I should be very glad to learn that the practice of allowing bail, which, as I have said, can be done with perfect safety in a great number of cases, had become the rule rather than the exception. In regard to the crime of murder, disagreement on the part of the jury is uncommon, and, therefore, the particular evil which was 318 threatened in the present case is one not likely frequently to occur. Still for all that, the interval before retrial should be made as short as possible, and I hope there will be very few cases in which a long period will elapse before any further trial can take place. If the noble Lord has any suggestions to make upon the subject I am perfectly certain that those who have charge of the administration of criminal justice will be only too glad to consider them, with a view to preventing the possibility of frequent delay for any length of time in the retrial of prisoners.
§ LORD ALVERSTONEMy Lords, this matter is one of such great importance that I should like to say a word or two upon it. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with the exception of one observation. I do not think that it ought to be inferred, and it would be a dangerous thing if it were inferred, that, because a learned Judge directed a trial to stand over to the next Assizes, he had any view on the question as to whether or not the prisoner should again be put on his trial. It may be that that was in the learned Judge's mind in this particular case; but for a great many years it has not been the practice to try again at the same Assizes prisoners in regard to whose cases the jury had not agreed, and for some reasons I think it is wise that the present practice should be continued. It may be that there should be some alteration of the law in that respect; but I doubt very much whether it is desirable to lay down a hard-and-fast rule. The practice has been, in cases where juries disagree, to try the prisoners again at the next Assizes. I think there should be some consideration whether the provisions of Palmer's Act, if they are not wide enough to allow removal in such a case, should not be extended; and I should like to associate myself with my noble and learned friend in not expressing any opinion as to whether or not, under that Act, there could be a removal simply on the ground of delay.
But there are other considerations which have to be borne in mind. I am not now speaking of this particular 319 case. In many cases where the jury has shown inability to agree it is very desirable that there should be some further time for inquiry in the interests of both justice and the prisoner. There has been, unfortunately, a practice on the part of prisoners to reserve their defence until the very last moment and not to disclose it until they come up for trial at the Assizes, with the result that the prosecution are at the disadvantage of not being able properly to test whether the defence is well founded. In the interests of the prisoner it is not undesirable that there should be some interval for inquiry, though I agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh that there should not be such a delay as five months. I may point out that this is by no means the first time that this has occurred. Your Lordships may probably remember the Essex murder four or five years ago. The prisoner was twice tried in the county of Essex, the jury disagreeing on both occasions and a nolle prosequi was entered by the Attorney-General. The matter is one which should be dealt with by the Government of the day. If we are to alter the law which has existed for centuries that a murder trial should take place in the county in which the offence was committed the alteration should be made by carefully considered legislation, and should not be left to the circumstances of any particular case. I do not quite agree with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack that bail affects this particular question, and I am able to assure him that the number of cases in which bail is refused is very few indeed. It is not usual, however, to allow bail in murder cases, except under exceptional circumstances. I am bound to say, after a very considerable experience, that, while I entirely agree that in every single case prisoners should be bailed if possible, the condition of many of these people is often such that they are a great deal better off, and better cared for and looked after, when they are not admitted to bail. But I thoroughly agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that, except under most exceptional circumstances, persons who are going to be tried for ordinary offences should be admitted to bail; and that 320 is the practice which, as far as is possible, those engaged in the administration of the criminal law adopt.