HL Deb 15 March 1923 vol 53 cc386-408

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 2:

Summary trial of adults charged with certain indictable offences.

2.—(1) Where a person who is an adult is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with an indictable offence being one of the offences specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, the court, if they think it expedient so to do, having regard to any representation made in presence of the accused by or on behalf of the prosecutor, the character and antecedents of the accused, the nature of the offence, the absence of circumstances which would render the offence one of a grave or serious character and all the other circumstances of the case (including the adequacy of the punishment which a court of summary jurisdiction has power to inflict), and if the accused when informed by the court of his right to be tried by a jury consents to be dealt with summarily, may, subject to the provisions of this section, deal summarily with the offence, and if the accused pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, the charge may sentence him to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine:

Provided that— (b) where in any case the prosecution is being carried on by the Director of Public Prosecutions or by the solicitor of a Government Department, the court shall not deal with the case summarily without the consent of the Director or solicitor, as the case may be;

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE) moved, in proviso (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "or by the solicitor of a Government Department." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I promised to consider this point during the Committee stage and I think it is better not to give "the solicitor of a Government Department" any privilege in this matter.

Amendment moved— Page 2, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("or by the solicitor of a Government Department").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I desire to thank the Lord Chancellor for having accepted at this stage an Amendment which I suggested when the Bill was in Committee. I felt very strongly that a prisoner should be put under no disability in regard to having an accusation dealt with at petty sessions because the prosecution was being conducted by the solicitor of a Government Department. I recognise that where the prosecution is being conducted by the Public Prosecutor different considerations arise. I may add one sentence. I have troubled your Lordships somewhat about this Bill, but it has to do with a very important matter—namely, our criminal jurisdiction and procedure. I thank the Lord Chancellor for having adopted this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 18, leave out ("or solicitor as the case may be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3:

Abolition of grand juries at quarter sessions.

3.—(1) As from the date on which this section comes into operation, grand juries at courts of quarter sessions shall be abolished, and thereafter an indictment may be presented to a court of quarter sessions without having been found by a grand jury, if it is an indictment against a person committed for trial at that court for the offence charged by the indictment.

(2) Save as aforesaid an indictment presented in pursuance of this section shall be presented and shall be proceeded with in the same manner as it would have been presented and proceeded with before the commencement of this section, and all enactments and rules of law relating to procedure in connection with indictable offences shall have effect accordingly, subject only to such modifications as are rendered necessary by the provisions of this section.

(3) An indictment against any person presented to a court of quarter sessions in pursuance of this section may contain, in addition to the counts for the offences specified in the caption of the depositions, any further counts founded on facts or evidence disclosed in any examination or deposition taken before a justice in the presence of the accused.

A court of quarter sessions may in any case direct any such further counts as aforesaid to be added to any indictment presented to the court.

(6) No precept shall after the commencement of this section be issued for the summoning of grand jurors to any court of quarter sessions, nor thereafter shall any grand jurors be summoned to any court of quarter sessions, and if any such precept or summons has been issued before the commencement of this section, it shall he void so far as it relates to the summoning of grand jurors to attend at courts of quarter sessions on or after the date of the commencement of this section.

LORD MARSHALL OF CHIPSTEAD moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert "Save as hereinafter in this section provided." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the following Amendments which stand in my name on the Paper are designed to do away with the necessity of summoning a grand jury to the Central Criminal Court in the City of London except in certain specified cases. I should like to say that I am moving these amendments in accordance with the unanimous resolution of the Aldermen of the City of London—who as your Lordships know, are Commissioners of the Central Criminal Court and consequently have some special knowledge of the requirements of that Court—and in accordance also with the unanimous resolution of the justices of the County of London. In view of the great expense and inconvenience caused to grand jurors summoned to the Central Criminal Court from that County these justices have resolved that they are strongly of opinion that grand juries are unnecessary in the administrative County of London and should be abolished. As both these bodies met last Friday to consider the matter, it was impossible for me to bring the resolutions before your Lordships on the Committee stage of the Bill.

In the debate last Thursday, it may be remembered, the Lord Chancellor, distinguishing between quarter sessions and assizes, favoured the retention of grand juries at assizes. He specially mentioned the cases of the larger cities and London, and I venture to think that he thus implied that in London and in large cities there might be perceptible hardships involved in the continuance of grand juries. It is because the Central Criminal Court differs in so many important respects from assizes in the provinces that it is sought to retain grand juries at that court only in certain cases to which I will presently allude. In the provinces as your Lordships are aware assizes are held but three times a year, with additional assizes for Lancashire and 'Yorkshire only, and in many assize towns the calendar is inconsiderable.

There are twelve sessions each year in the Central Criminal Court, and at each of these twelve sessions from sixty to seventy persons are summoned to serve on the grand jury from the area of its jurisdiction, which, as the House may be aware, comprises parts of Middlesex, Essex, Kent and Surrey, as well as London. Happily or unhappily, these grand jurors are not always, as in the provinces, county magistrates and men of leisure. They are merchants, bankers, professional men, withdrawn from their vocations and suffering materially in the matter both of time and of money. Further, the witnesses for the prosecution in each case are often called from great distances to appear before the grand jury on the first day of the session, though perhaps the trial does not come on for two or three weeks. These persons have either to stay in London or return to their homes, in many cases a long way off. In the Report of the Committee on Alterations in Criminal Procedure it is stated that between £10,000 and £12,000 per annum have been saved within the Metropolitan Police district alone through the absence of grand juries during the war, and that the utility of the grand jury is largely discounted "by reason of the very careful preliminary investigation before justices and the minuteness with which proofs of guilt are there tendered."

I would remind your Lordships that the Central Criminal Court differs from courts of assize in the country in that some 90 per cent. of the cases sent to that Court have been carefully investigated by stipendiary magistrates, and the remainder by Aldermen of the City of London and other justices, with the expert legal advice at their command, thus rendering the more cursory preliminary investigation of the grand jury all the less needful. A further great safeguard to the liberty of the subject is the Press, which, in London, is well represented in the courts where the preliminary investigation by the magistrates is made. There is a yet further difference in the fact that all criminal cases in the City of London come to the Central Criminal Court, whether they be crimes which would ordinarily be tried at quarter sessions or not, because the quarter sessions of the City of London do not try criminal cases. Magistrates in the rest of London may refer minor cases to the London Sessions, where, if this Bill becomes law, there will be no grand jury. In consequence there would be the anomaly of what are really similar quarter sessions cases being tried at the London Sessions without a grand jury and at the Central Criminal Court with a grand jury.

May I now refer briefly to the exceptions in which my Amendment provides for a grand jury at the Central Criminal Court? They are cases of treason and treason felony. For this there is, I believe, the precedent of Scotland, where no grand juries exist except for such cases. It is obvious, I think, that these exceptions might be desirable in cases where the defendant might be entitled to the privilege of a bill of indictment going before the grand jury. I have omitted the crime of murder, because the class of evidence of murder does not materially differ from that of lesser crimes, and also because unfortunately there is a case of murder at nearly every session of the Central Criminal Court, so that to include murder would render these Amendments practically worthless. There is a further exception regarding the right of a person, proceeding under the Vexatious Indictments Act, or of his own motion, to present a bill of indictment direct to the grand jury. Such cases are, as your Lordships are aware, infrequent and generally frivolous, but it has been thought that while such rights are preserved at assizes it might be considered a source of complaint were persons within the area of the Central Criminal Court alone to be deprived of such rights, for what they are worth.

As a layman and a comparatively new member of your Lordships' House, I must claim your Lordships' indulgence if I have failed to lay the reasons for this Amendment clearly before your Lordships. I may, however, pray in aid the opinions of Sir A. H. Bodkin, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. Herbert Austin, Clerk of the Central Criminal Court (both of whom served on the Committee on whose Report this Bill is, I believe, largely based), as strongly in favour of the abolition of grand juries at the Central Criminal Court. I may also pray in aid the fact that I am not proposing any daring innovation, seeing that during the late war no grand juries sat at the Central Criminal Court, and yet, so far as can be ascertained, no injustice was done to anybody in consequence. I trust that at this stage I may have the support of some of your Lordships more capable than myself in legal matters, and that your Lordships may think fit to adopt the proposals which I have outlined.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 1, at the beginning of subsection (1) insert ("save as hereinafter in this section provided").—(Lord Marshall of Chipstead.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, the question of principle arises conveniently on this Amendment, and therefore I wish to say a few sentences upon the subject. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will regard this proposition sympathetically, because the position of the Central Criminal Court is a very peculiar one. There are four assizes in the year throughout the country, but there are twelve sittings of the Central Criminal Court. Persons summoned to sit on the grand jury at the Central Criminal Court are busy men, drawn from the City and its surroundings. The evidence is not always ready, the delay is very great, and a great deal of expense is involved, so that the question arises whether just the same kind of reason does not apply as applies in the case of the quarter sessions.

I say "just the same kind of reason," because there is a difference between the cases which go to the assizes and the cases which go to the Central Criminal Court. In the case of the assizes the cases first go before lay magistrates, who do their best, although it may be said that the inquiries which they make are not upon the level of inquiries made by trained legal experts. In the case of the Central Criminal Court, however, the preliminary investigations are made by the London stipendiary magistrates, who are men of great experience and capacity, and who certainly are likely to make at least as good a preliminary inquiry as a grand jury has the opportunity of making. As the noble Lord who moved this Amendment has pointed out, minor cases go to the Sessions in London. They are the more serious cases which go to the Central Criminal Court, and these are investigated in the way I have described by stipendiary magistrates, who are trained lawyers and generally men of large experience.

In these circumstances surely every reason that applies for the abolition of grand juries at the quarter sessions applies equally here. It is true it may be said that this Amendment comes more naturally in a Bill dealing with grand juries on circuit, but we have no such Bill at present before the House, and there is an opportunity by a short clause, which fits in with the scheme of the Bill, to deal with the Central Criminal Court on the same footing as the other matters dealt with in the Bill. In these circumstances I venture to submit to the House that the reasonable course to take is to give effect to the strongly expressed desire of the City that this grievance, which is a very real one, should be dealt with.

THE EARL OF DESART

My Lords, I had an opportunity of seeing this Amendment only this morning, and I do not, know that I can be said to have formed any very long considered opinion as to the desirability of its introduction; but as one who has adopted with some hesitation the principle in the Bill that grand juries should be abolished at quarter sessions, I am disposed to examine closely anything which extends that principle beyond the quarter sessions. So far as I follow the speech of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and the speech of Lord Haldane, I think the main, if not the sole argument is that it is inconvenient for busy men to attend, and that this Court sits very frequently. There is the further argument that the cases which come before the Central Criminal Court are investigated as a rule by stipendiary magistrates, and therefore one of the arguments in favour of maintaining grand juries does not apply with equal force. I should point out in connection with that last argument that although the large majority of the cases which come before the Central Criminal Court are investigated by stipendiary magistrates, there are other cases, from Middlesex and the surrounding counties, which are examined by lay magistrates.

As regards the question of convenience, although the sessions are more frequent, and the cases more numerous, than at the assizes, equally the grand jurymen available for the Central Criminal Court are more numerous, and are drawn from various counties. Therefore I am inclined to doubt whether any individual juryman is subjected to more inconvenience than the individual grand juryman at assizes. As to the other point, it is the fact that the majority of cases are committed for trial by stipendiary magistrates. I want, however, to put this point. Accepting the position that grand juries are not required at quarter sessions, and that it is desirable they should be maintained at assizes, I may point out that the Commission of the Central Criminal Court covers everything that can be tried at assizes. It is fully as extensive as the Commission of Assize, and it is not very easy to see why you should distinguish between the Central Criminal Court and the assizes. It is rather because I feel hesitation about the whole principle that I do not want to see it extended beyond that which is reasonably necessary.

Further, I am under the impression (though I have not yet had time to look up the point) that there are certain classes of indictment for offences by public servants abroad—Governors and others—in which the indictment under the present law has to be found at the Central Criminal Court, and it might be necessary to consider whether those classes of offences should be examined to see whether special provision should not be made for them. But the thing which really troubles me is that the Central Criminal Court has the same powers as the assize court, and tries the same cases.

I am not one of those who think that it is by any means the same thing for counsel for the prosecution not to offer evidence against a man liable to be discharged on his trial, or for the Judge to direct the grand jury to acquit, as it is for the grand jury to say that the man should not be put on his trial at all. I have known cases, though not many, in which I have thought that the grand jury has been a very valuable safeguard. They are very rare, and I do not know that they ought to negative the principle which is embodied in this Bill. But I really do not see on what principle you can exclude from the provision that maintains grand jiffies at assizes that which also maintains the grand jury at a Court which has the same powers as a court of assize and tries the same class of case. I confess I shall be guided by the views of the Lord Chancellor on that point, but I do think these are considerations which ought not, to be overlooked in dealing with this Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, this Amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, in a speech of great force and absolute clarity, for which, I am sure, no kind of apology was needed; and it comes to your Lordships strongly recommended, because it is supported, I understand, by the Court of Aldermen, and by the magistrates for the County of London. It also provokes some natural sympathy from me, because I think the very fact that the demand for the application of our proposals is growing, and that there is a wish to have the principle extended, shows how right we were to make the proposals in the first place. Therefore I naturally approach the Amendment with a good deal of sympathy.

But there are one or two points which I should like the House to consider. This Amendment comes rather late in the progress of this Bill. I do not blame the noble Lord for that, because, no doubt, the body he represents did not meet in time to put forward this proposal at the Committee stage. But there is this consideration: the Central Criminal Court performs really the functions of a court of assize. I do not say that it is technically an assize court, but for all practical purposes it performs all the functions of an assize court, not only for the City of London, but for the whole, of the County of London and some places adjoining London.

It is part of the principle of this clause that it applies only to quarter sessions, and I have given the House on more than one occasion reasons for that distinction. Now it is proposed to extend the clause to a Court which is for all practical purposes an assize court; that is to say, a Court where very serious charges are tried which cannot be tried at quarter sessions—charges not only of treason and treason felony, but of murder and of other very serious offences, which Parliament has deliberately excluded from the jurisdiction of quarter sessions. For the first time it is now proposed that those charges may be brought forward against a defendant without any recommendation by a grand jury.

We ought to consider, too, that at the Central Criminal Court justice is administered by the Recorder and, in the more serious cases, by a Judge of the High Court—a Red Judge, as we call him. That distinguishes that Court from the quarter sessions with which the clause deals, and I am bound to remind the House that the Judges, by a very large majority, have shown themselves opposed to the abolition of grand juries at the Courts over which they preside. There has been no time for me to ascertain the opinion of the Judges on the proposal to abolish the grand jury at the Central Criminal Court, and I really think that the opinion of those who are so experienced in the administration of justice at that Court ought to be ascertained before your Lordships take this step. There has also been no time to ascertain the opinion of the Recorder who usually presides at that Court or of the Common Sergeant, and I should like to know what is the opinion of those learned Judges upon this proposal.

Further, the proposal is so new that it has never yet been discussed in this House or, I think, elsewhere in public, and there has been no chance of ascertaining what is the public opinion of London on this matter. All these things lead me to speak with some caution and some hesitation, and to suggest to your Lordships that you should not come to a hasty decision. It is also the fact that the form of the Amendment (though I do not dwell much upon this) wants a good deal more consideration than it has received. My advisers are not satisfied with its form, but that, of course, is a minor matter, which can be dealt with later.

Were we to adopt this Amendment today we should give away the principle which animates the Bill. As between my sympathy for the general view which the noble Lord has expressed and my natural caution, for the reasons which I have given to the House, I am, of course, in some difficulty. What I should most like would be for the noble Lord not to press his Amendments here, but have them moved in another place by someone representing the City of London. If, after full discussion in another place, the Amendments are pressed and adopted, then I do not suppose for a moment that your Lordships would desire to oppose them. But I think it would be rather hazardous for this House, upon this first Motion, to assent to the Amendments. Therefore I would ask my noble friend, if he thinks fit, to withdraw the Amendments to-day, and to be content with the debate which we have had and with the public discussion which is certain to ensue.

LORD MARSHALL OF CHIPSTEAD

In deference to the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4:

Provisions as to reading over, etc., of depositions and as to statement of accused on proceedings before examining justices.

4.—(1) Where any person is charged before examining justices with an indictable offence, the justices shall, as soon as may be after the examination of each witness for the prosecution has been concluded, cause the deposition of that witness to be read to him in the presence and hearing of the accused, and shall cause him to sign, and shall themselves sign, the deposition, and shall forthwith bind him over to attend the trial in manner directed by Section twenty of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, as amended by this Act.

(4) Whatever the accused states in answer to the above questions or either of them shall be taken down in manner shown in a form to be prescribed by rules made under this Act in substitution for Form N in the Schedule to the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, and shall be read over to the accused and signed by him if he so desires, and also by the examining justices, and shall be transmitted to the court of trial with the depositions of the witnesses in manner provided in Section twenty of the said Act.

(6) On the trial the statement of the accused taken down as aforesaid, and whether signed by him or not, may be given in evidence without further proof thereof, unless it is proved that the examining justices purporting to sign the statement did not in fact sign it.

(8) Where a charge is inquired into by two or more examining justices, the deposition of a witness or the statement of the accused shall for all purposes be deemed to be sufficiently signed if signed by any one of those justices.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and shall themselves sign." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment and the other Amendments on Clause 4 are really of a formal character, and deal with the signing of depositions.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 25, leave out ("and shall themselves sign").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert as a new paragraph: On the trial the statement of the accused taken down as aforesaid, and whether signed by him or not, may be given in evidence without further proof thereof, unless it is proved that the examining justices purporting to sign the statement did not in fact sign it.

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 18, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move the omission of subsection (6).

Amendment moved— Page 6, lines 3 to 7, leave out subsection (6). —(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit "Where a" at the beginning of subsection (8), and insert: The depositions taken in connection with any charge for an indictable offence shall be signed by the justices before whom they ire taken in such manner as may be directed by rules made under this Act, and where any such. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 13, leave out ("where a") and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHARNWOOD had on the Paper an Amendment, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:— . In all cases in which a committal for trial is made, a court of summary jurisdiction shall inform the accused of the provisions of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903, and shall warn him that reserving his defence may prevent legal aid from being granted under the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to bring forward this Amendment on this stage of the Bill, but it is not altogether my fault. I am sorry also that it should appear on the Paper in a somewhat cumbersome form, and I should prefer, with your Lordships' per- mission, to alter it by leaving out the words "Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903," in the last line of the Amendment, and substituting for them the words "that Act." That alteration makes no difference to the sense and it certainly renders the Amendment a little less clumsy.

As your Lordships are aware, provision is made by the Act of 1903 for the defence of poor prisoners in certain cases at the public charge. That defence may be granted to them either by the committing justices or the Judge or Chairman of Quarter Sessions- after the reading over of the depositions. There is an impression abroad that a certain number of poor prisoners who might with advantage receive the benefit of that Act do not, in fact, get the benefit of it. It is rather difficult to ascertain to what extent that really happens, but there are reasons for supposing—in fact, we know—that it is not unlikely to happen in a certain number of cases. A Judge or Chairman of Quarter Sessions, in deciding whether a poor prisoner shall be thus defended or not, is to have regard to the nature of the defence set up by that prisoner as disclosed in the evidence given, or the statement made by him, before the committing justices. There is, I understand, nothing in those words to prevent a Judge from granting such legal aid even where the prisoner has said nothing.

But in the case of a prisoner who had reserved his defence before the committing justices, the Judge or Chairman of Quarter Sessions would naturally be disinclined to think that he ought to be aided at the public expense in putting forward a defence which he has not thought fit to disclose before the magistrates who committed him. Moreover, it might often be the case that a prisoner might be able to state before the committing justices some particular reason which would make it expedient that he should have the benefit of the Act; and the first part of my Amendment requires the committing magistrates to call his attention to the effect of the provisions of the Act.

The matter, however, does not rest there. It is a common practice of experienced gaol birds to reserve their defence before the committing magistrate, and there is, I imagine, among people who either commit crimes or whose circumstances are such that they might be tempted to commit them, a sort of tradition that this is the sound and sagacious course to follow. It does not seem to be a very likely course for any honest man to take, though it is one which, through listening to bad advisers, an honest and innocent man might take—to keep his mouth shut on his first appearance in court when he might more wisely make a clean breast of whatever he has to say. His silence on such an occasion will obviously prejudice his chance of securing the benefit of defence under the Act to which I have alluded, for the reasons that I have already indicated.

And the matter goes even a little further than that, because, as I understand, it is the existing practice, or is required by the words of the Bill, that the magistrates who hear a prisoner in the first instance shall warn him of the risk he may incur in reference to anything that he chooses to say. That is a risk more formidable to a guilty than to an innocent man. The suggestion of the second part of my Amendment is that the committing justices shall also warn him of the risk which he may possibly incur by keeping silence—namely, that he may, in fact, though not necessarily in law, shut himself out from obtaining the benefit of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, which might otherwise well be given to him on his trial. I think I have made clear the object of my Amendment. It seems to me that there are these dangers to the possibly innocent person of not getting the benefit of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act. How far they operate I cannot say, because I have small knowledge of courts of justice; but I do not see what harm the adoption of the procedure under my Amendment can do, and I hope my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will be able to accept it.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 4, insert the following new clause: . In all cases in which a committal for trial is made, a court of summary jurisdiction shall inform the accused of the provisions of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903, and shall warn him that reserving his defence may prevent legal aid from being granted under that Act."—(Lord Charnwood.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I sincerely hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. In the first place, I think it is based on an entire misapprehension of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act of 1903. It is a matter which constantly arises before one at quarter sessions, and I have never heard it suggested that the reservation of defence was a ground for refusing an application under the Act if, on other grounds, it was properly constituted. The noble Lord has pointed out—I think he has also admitted that his experience is not very great in these matters—that there is nothing in the Act which makes a poor prisoner's defence dependent upon whether he has or has not reserved his defence. That being so, I very much dislike the proposal that a warning should be given to a prisoner on a matter which, after all, is a question of discretion and does not depend upon the terms of the Act at all. It ought to be open to a prisoner, if he is so advised, to reserve his defence, and he ought not to be warned that if he reserves his defence he may suffer under some disability which Parliament has not, in fact, imposed upon him.

LORD CHARNWOOD

May I explain? I am not suggesting that he should be told that he incurs any disability. Of course he does not, but he does incur the risk that if the court above cannot see that he has any defence they may refuse him legal aid.

LORD PARMOOR

I do not think he incurs risk of any kind, but whether he does or not—I look at it entirely from the point of view of the person accused—to warn him not to reserve his defence on the ground that a discretion, which is not a condition of the Act itself, may possibly be exercised against him, is against his interest. On the whole I think it is an extremely doubtful matter, and one that ought not to be sanctioned. I speak entirely in the interests of the prisoner, and particularly of the poor prisoner for whom, no doubt, the noble Lord is speaking on the present occasion. I therefore hope the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will not accept this Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment has, I think, made clear what his purpose is. The Poor Prisoners' Defence Act provides that having regard to the nature of the defence set up by a poor prisoner, as shown in the evidence given or statement made by him before the committing justices, the justices, if they think right, can certify, to put it shortly, for legal aid to be given to the prisoner when he is tried upon the indictment. In a case where the prisoner charged at petty sessions makes no defence the power does not arise. The Act does not enable you to give aid to a prisoner who lays no foundation for it. He may hold his tongue because he is afraid of speaking, or because he is advised not to make any defence, and in those cases you cannot give him legal aid.

I confess that I have often felt some regret that in some cases I could not grant legal aid. I do not mean cases where a man reserves his defence, because where a prisoner does that either he is an old hand who knows how awkward it is to say anything at all if he is guilty, or he has already legal aid and his solicitor has advised him to say nothing. In those cases I do not feel any solicitude for the accused, But I do feel a little solicitude for those cases where a man, undefended, has held his tongue because he is afraid to say anything at petty sessions, and has afterwards perhaps petitioned the Judge or the Chairman of Quarter Sessions for legal aid, and has given some reasonable explanation of the case against him. In those cases one would like sometimes to grant legal aid. Of course it can be done by the Judge, who can always order counsel in his court to defend a prisoner.

But although I have that feeling I must say that I should not like to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, because it seems to me it might have very serious consequences. The humane principles of our law differ in this respect from the laws of other countries. The principle of our law is to give a man, if I may so put it, a fair run, and in no way either to invite him or press him to make any statement which might adversely affect his chances. The House knows perfectly well the course taken. It is reflected in Clause 4 of this Bill. The examining justices address to the accused the following words, or words to the like effect:— Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge, and do you plead guilty or not guilty? You are not obliged to say anything in answer to either of these questions unless you desire to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence upon your trial. Further, the Bill provides that before the accused makes any statement in answer to the above questions the examining justices shall state to him, and give him clearly to understand, that he has nothing to hope from any promise of favour, and nothing to fear from any threat which may have been held out to him to induce him to make any admission or confession of his guilt, but that whatsoever he then says may be given in evidence on his trial notwithstanding the promise or threat.

If the noble Lord's Amendment were adopted you would be pressing the prisoner to make a statement, and it is not desirable that an ignorant man should be pressed or invited to make a statement which might very seriously injure his defence. I am most unwilling to direct that to be done, because it might, in some cases, turn out to be a trap for a man. If the noble Lord proposed to amend the Act by giving a wider discretion to the Judge after committal that would be another matter, but I am afraid it would not be in the interests of the prisoner to accept this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6:

Venue in indictable offences.

6.—(1) A person charged with any indictable offence may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished in any county or place in which he was apprehended, is in custody, or has appeared in answer to a summons charging the offence, as if the offence had been committed in that county or place, and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the prosecution, trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that county or place: Provided that if at any time it appears to any examining justices during the course of any proceedings taken against any person before them in pursuance of this subsection that the accused would suffer undue hardship if he were indicted and tried in the county or place aforesaid, the examining justices shall forthwith (but without prejudice to their powers under Section twenty-two of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848), cease to proceed further in the matter under this subsection.

(2) Where any person is charged with two or more indictable offences, he may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished in respect of all those offences in any county or place in which he could be proceeded against, indicted, tried or punished in respect of any one of those offences, and all the offences with which that person is charged shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the prosecution, trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that county or place.

(3) Where a person is charged with an offence against the Forgery Act, 1913, or with an offence indictable at common law or under any Act for the time being in force, consisting in the forging or altering of any matter whatsoever, or in offering, uttering, disposing of or putting off any matter whatsoever, knowing the same to be forged or altered, and the offence relates to documents made for the purpose of any Act relating to the suppression of the slave trade, the offence shall for the purposes of jurisdiction and trial be treated as an offence against the Slave Trade Act, 1873.

(4) Nothing in this section shall affect the laws relating to the government of His Majesty's Naval, Military or Air Forces.

(5) This section shall not apply to the trial of offences otherwise than on indictment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, lines 42 and 43, leave out subsection 5.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12:

Court of quarter sessions on appeal to state case on point of law.

12.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of a court of quarter sessions, on the application of any party to the proceedings, to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on any point of law arising in any appeal against a conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction or the sentence imposed on such a conviction.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert the following subsections:— (1) After the determination by a court of quarter sessions of any appeal against a conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction or the sentence imposed on such a conviction, either party to the proceedings may, if dissatisfied with the determination of the court of quarter sessions as being erroneous in point of law, make an application in writing to the court of quarter sessions at any time within three days after the date of the determination of the appeal to have a case stated for the opinion of the High Court on the point of law. Any such application may be made by delivering it to the clerk of the peace, and for the purpose of the making of any such application, the court of quarter sessions, if not adjourned, shall be deemed to have been adjourned until the next subsequent sitting of the court.

(2) The applicant shall, before the case is stated and delivered to him by the court of quarter sessions, enter before a justice having jurisdiction in the county or place for which the court of quarter sessions acts into a recognisance, with or without sureties and in such sum as the justice considers proper, conditioned to prosecute the appeal without delay and to submit to the judgment of the High Court, and pay such costs as may be awarded by that court, and the applicant shall before the case is delivered to him pay to the clerk of the peace his fees for and in respect of the case and recognisances."

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment in order to meet a point taken in Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor. I think that there was a good deal in what the noble and learned Lord said. The effect of this Amendment is not to compel the court to state a case, but it says that the parties may within three days make an application in writing to the court of quarter sessions lo have a case stated for the opinion of the High Court. I think that in this form my noble and learned friend will not object to the Amendment, and I beg to move it.

Amendment moved— Page 14, lines 33 to 39, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for moving this Amendment. I expressed on the Committee stage my view as to why the clause as drawn dealing with this matter could not be effectively worked. I have very carefully considered the proposed Amendment, and it appears to meet all the objections to which I called your Lordships' attention at the previous stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT HAMPDEN moved, after Clause 27, to insert the following new clause: .—(1) The justices of the peace for the county of Hertford shall in every year hold alternately within the Hertford division and within the Liberty of St. Alban division of the said county courts of general or quarter sessions of the peace for the whole county of Hertford:

  1. (a) An Epiphany session within the Hertford division in the first week after the twenty-eighth day of December;
  2. (b) An Easter session within the Liberty of St. Alban division in the first week after the thirty-first day of March;
  3. (c) A Midsummer session within the Hertford division in the first week after the twenty-fourth day of June;
    4. 406
  4. (d) A Michaelmas session within the Liberty of St. Alban division in the first week after the eleventh day of October.

(2) The said justices shall, on each occasion after holding in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section a session in one of the said divisions of the county, hold a session by adjournment in the other of the said divisions.

(3) Every court held under this section shall he a court of quarter sessions for the whole county of Hertford, and shall have power to hear, determine, and dispose of all business accordingly.

(4) The justices resident in the Hertford division shall from time to time at sessions held under this section in that division elect persons to act as chairman and deputy-chairman of the court of quarter sessions of the county of Hertford when the court is sitting within the Hertford division, and the justices resident in the Liberty of St. Alban division shall from time to time at sessions held under this section in that division elect persons to act as chairman and deputy-chairman of the said court when the court is sitting within the Liberty of St. Alban division.

(5) Section five of the County of Hertford Act, 1878, shall have effect as though for the references to the Hertford division quarter sessions and the St. Alban division quarter sessions there were respectively substituted references to the sessions for the county of Hertford held under this Act within the Hertford division and the sessions for the said county so held within the Liberty of St. Alban division.

(6) This section shall come into operation on the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-three."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I can explain the object of this Amendment in very few words. Some fifty years ago in Hertfordshire there were two divisions of justices of the peace, and an Act was passed which provided that the quarter sessions should be held at Hertford and at St. Albans. The first sitting is held on the first Monday in the quarter at Hertford and then the court is adjourned to the following day, Tuesday, when they are held at St. Albans. The proposal of the Amendment is that instead of having quarter sessions held at Hertford and St. Albans on Mondays and Tuesdays on four different occasions in the year they should be held the first Monday in the quarter at Hertford and then adjourned to St. Albans six weeks after. Instead of adjourning for one day only we shall adjourn for six weeks. The whole of the criminal business of the county ready for trial would be taken on one day and then the court would be adjourned for six weeks.

In order to meet the requirements of the Bill we should have, in addition to the eight ordinary quarter sessions, four adjourned quarter sessions, and that would mean summoning about 480 jurors during the year, excluding grand jurors. If the Amendment is carried we shall be able to carry out the work by summoning 320 common jurors as we do to-day. This will effect considerable economy in time and money in the attendance of jurors and also some economy in time and money in the attendance of Judges and officials. We are simply asking for power to reshuffle our domestic arrangements. The question has been very carefully considered in the county and it is the unanimous opinion of all who have to do with the administration of the law in Hertfordshire that this arrangement would not only be convenient and fair but would go a very long way to meet the reform proposals of the Government in the Bill.

Amendment moved— After Clause 27, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Hampden.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think the noble Viscount makes out a strong case for the new clause. The County of Hertford is under some special Acts, and it is obvious that in this particular respect they do not work very well and cause considerable expense. I think your Lordships, therefore, will probably feel disposed to accept the new clause.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule (Indictable offences by adults which may be dealt with summarily):

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My lords, my Amendment to this Schedule deals with small offences which may very fairly be dealt with by magistrates summarily.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 24, at end insert: 13. Offences in relation to stamps issued for the purpose of National Health Insurance or Unemployment Insurance under the provision; of any enactments as applied to those stamps."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.
Enactments repealed.
Session and Chapter. Short Title. Extent of Repeal.
5 & 6 Vict. c. 38. The Quarter section Act, 1842. In section one, paragraph 9. and the words "bigamy and" in paragraph 10.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, my first Amendment to this schedule is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 23, lines 8 to 10, leave out ("and the words 'bigamy and' in paragraph 10"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT HAMPDEN

My Lords, my Amendment is consequential upon the adoption of the new clause which I proposed.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, after line 28 insert:

("37 & 38 Viet. c. 45. Country of Hertford and Liberty of St. Alban Act, 1874. Sections nine and thirteen.
41 & 42 Vict. c. 50. County of Hertford Act, 1878. Section four")

—(Viscount Hampden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My second Amendment is also drafting.

Amendment moved—

Page 24, line 22, at end insert:

("10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 81. The Administration of Justice Act, 1920. In section four the words "or quarter sessions" and the words" or clerk of "the peace as the "case may be.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.