HL Deb 18 March 1924 vol 56 cc778-98

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That, the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Probation areas, committees and officers.

(9) Section seven of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (which relates to the recognition of societies for the care of youthful offenders on probation), shall cease to have effect.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved to leave out subsection (9) and insert the following new subsection: "(9) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall affect the right of voluntary societies to supply agents for the missionary work in any probation area or for engagement as probation officers." The right rev. Prelate said: It must not be supposed for one moment that in moving this Amendment I am opposing the Bill in any way. Indeed, I am most enthusiastically in favour of the Bill before the House, but there is one collateral point on which I, with many of my brother Bishops, feel very strongly, and that relates to the appointment of probation officers. If your Lordships will take the Bill in your hands you will find that subsection (9) reads as follows:— Section seven of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (which relates to the recognition of societies for the care of youthful offenders on probation), shall cease to have effect. That is the only mention in the Bill of voluntary assistance, and I wish to tell your Lordships what has been done, and why we feel so strongly with regard to probation and missionary work in the police courts.

If there is one thing of which the Church of England has been proud, and especially the Church of England Temperance Society, it has been the police court mission, which began in 1876 when there were two missioners sent to two of the police courts. In 1907 we had 143 missionaries working in 358 courts; we have now 155 missionaries working in 362 courts, and on this particular work we spend £33,000 a year. There are many people with very little sympathy with our temperance work in other respects, who have spoken enthusiastically in favour of this particular work, and all the magistrates into whose courts we send our missionaries have informed us again and again that without these police court missionaries it would be almost impossible to carry on their work.

In 1922 a Departmental Committee set up by the late Government made a Report, and I would call attention to the extraordinarily favourable terms in which this Committee, of which Sir John Baird was the Chairman, spoke with regard to our police court missionaries. I will proceed to quote a series of extracts from what they said:— Further, the probation officer has hitherto owed much of his success to the relationship he has been able to establish with the probationer, who looks upon him as a friend, not as an official. To turn the probation officer into a new class of civil servant would, we believe, tend to destroy tin's valuable influence… As we have indicated above the supply of probation officers throughout the country depends to a large extent on the work of voluntary societies. The principal of them is the Church of England Temperance Society, which has performed most valuable services in supplying for this field of social work a number of devoted men and women …

I call your special attention to what follows:— We think it would be a great pity to take any step which would endanger the carrying on of this valuable work … All the witnesses, including magistrates whom we consulted, were unanimous in attaching great importance to the missionary work of the courts …. Courts and local authorities should not discriminate too narrowly between probation work and missionary work.

The last statement which I will quote has a particular bearing on this question:— Many qualifications were mentioned to us as desirable in a good probation officer. Sympathy, tact, common sense, firmness, are but a few, but there was a general agreement that a keen missionary spirit based on religious conviction is essential. We have carried on this work since 1878, and all the magistrates have welcomed our co-operation.

This is a matter in which the Church has really educated the nation, but when we turn to this Bill we find no mention whatever made in it of the societies. It is a great mistake to discourage the work of these voluntary societies. It is not customary in this country to discourage such voluntary effort. We do not discourage voluntary hospitals; we did not abolish voluntary schools when the nation adopted national education—we encouraged them. And therefore it would be a false step to throw away the £30,000 a year which voluntary societies are ready to supply for this particular work. The last point, and the strongest of all, is that for this work you must have a man of a certain character—a man with some kind of missionary zeal, some kind of power to influence character. It is no good to turn him into a mere civil servant, who takes his money and does his best : you must have a man with a special character. And what we are so anxious for in this great improvement of our national system is that the voluntary societies should be allowed to supply men as they have done up till now. We pay one-third and the State pays two-thirds, and by that means we get the type of man which the country really needs for this very special work.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 21 to 24, leave out subsection (9) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE)

I am very much in sympathy with what has been said by the right rev. Prelate, but there is no desire to interfere with the work of these societies. The right rev. Prelate seems to think that there is something in the Bill which may affect that work, but there is nothing in the Bill which touches it. We leave it completely intact, and I hope, therefore, that he will be content with my assurance that that is so.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

I would willingly accept the noble and learned Viscount's assurance, but if there is nothing in the Bill whatever about the voluntary societies would not a magistrate's clerk, interpreting the Bill, say that under this clause we are not allowed to intervene ?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

You give your personal assurance ?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

Very well, I accept the noble and learned Viscount's assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Summary trial of adults charged with certain indictable offences):

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have to move a drafting Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 14, leave out (" charge ") and insert ("offence charged").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Provisions as to reading over, etc., of depositions and as to statement of accused on proceedings before examining justices) :

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Here again is what is merely a drafting Amendment, the purpose of which is to get rid of a verbal obscurity in subsection (4).

Amendment moved— Page 10, lines 24 and 23, leave out (" him if he so desires and also by the examining justices ") and insert (" the examining justices and also if he so desires by him ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the last paragraph of subsection (5), after "aforesaid," to insert "not being a witness merely to the character of the accused." The noble and learned Viscount said: This, again, is just a drafting Amendment. It was never intended that witnesses merely to character should have all their statements written out. They should be taken note of, and used in the usual way, as they are at present.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 9, after (" aforesaid ") insert the said words.— (The, Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Provisions as to issue of process by justices in case of persons outside jurisdiction.

(4) The power of a justice under section sixteen of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, and under section seven of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, to issue process for the purpose of obtaining the attendance as a witness of any person within the jurisdiction of the justice, shall he extended so as to authorise the issue of such process in the case of a person who though not within the jurisdiction of the justice is in any county or place in England or Wales.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (4), after "justice," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "and under section twenty-nine of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, to summon and require any such person to attend as a witness and to produce such books, plans, papers, documents, articles, goods and things as are mentioned in the said section." The noble and learned Viscount said: That Amendment is to enable the magistrates to get the documents that are, necessary, as well as to summon witnesses. It is a little more than a drafting Amendment, but it makes no substantial alteration.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 5, after (" justice ") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause l6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.

Clause 21:

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

(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 to the clerk to the justice his fee for and in respect of the recognisances.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2), after "as the justice considers proper," to insert "having regard to the means of the applicant." The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment to which I hope His Majesty's Government will see their way to agree. Your Lordships will see that subsection (2) of Clause 21 provides that if there is to be an appeal to quarter sessions the justice who has jurisdiction shall make the applicant enter into recognisances, with or without sureties and in such sum as the justice considers proper, conditioned to prosecute the appeal without delay. It has been my experience that very often, in the case of poor persons, sums are named for the sureties which it is impossible for them to find. I recollect a case in which a man who obviously had no goods and chattels was required to be bound over himself in £40 and two sureties in £50 each. I recollect also a case, quite lately, of an appeal from the decision of the magistrates to quarter sessions in which two sureties of £50 each had to be found. The result very often is to make appeals impossible to the poor, and I am sure your Lordships would not desire that result. At the same time, there should not be any encouragement of frivolous appeals.

Therefore, the Amendment I propose does not in any way limit the discretion of the justice, but merely puts before him, as one of the things to which he should have regard, the condition of the applicant and his power of getting the sureties required. I desire to insert in line 33, on page 20, after "proper," " having regard to the means of the applicant"; so that the justice should have before him the fact that in some eases smaller sureties should be required than in others. I do not want to limit the discretion of the justice, but I think your Lordships will agree that the opportunity for appeal should not be limited simply because a person is poor.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 33, after (" proper ") insert ("' having regard to the means of the applicant ").—(Earl Russell.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think that this is a reasonable Amendment and I am glad that the noble Earl has called attention to the point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 (Enforcement of recognisances to be of good behaviour):

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "recognisance was entered into "and to insert "court by which the recognisance was ordered to be entered into was held." The noble Viscount said: This is merely a necessary drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 9, leave out (" recognisance was entered into") and insert ("court by which the recognisance was ordered to he entered into was held ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection: "(3) Where a defendant refuses to enter into recognisances to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour, he shall not be liable to a heavier penalty than could have been inflicted upon him if convicted of the offence originally charged."

The noble Earl said: I want to insert the new subsection as printed on the Paper for this reason. I am not, quite certain that I am stating the law correctly, but I think I am. The noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong: but I believe that in cases where a person is charged with a very minor offence, for which probably the maximum penalty would be three days' or seven days' imprisonment, or some- thing of that sort, the justice, instead of proceeding to conviction may, under the provisions of the First Offenders' Act, offer to bind him over to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour, as the case may be. That is obviously intended as an alleviation of his powers. Now the section certainly did provide when it was Section 10 of the old Act, "where the ease was trivial or one which does not require conviction." Therefore, presumably, the offence is not so serious as the full offence charged; but if the defendant who is ordered to be bound over refuses to be bound over, then, I believe, a justice has power to sentence him to a month's imprisonment in default of his being so bound. That is a more severe penalty.

Your Lordships will remember what happened in regard to the suffragettes. "Hundreds of these women were sent to prison for a month for refusal to find sureties, although the particular offence with which they were charged was one for which the maximum penalty was three days' imprisonment. That is obviously an anomaly. I have in my recollection a case, in which the magistrate deliberately used this power in regard to a Salvation Army captain who had been preaching in the streets and causing an obstruction. He was summoned for causing an obstruction, and he was simply ordered to be bound over. But, like the suffragettes, he thought it was a matter of principle to refuse, and he refused to be bound over. He was, therefore, sent to prison for a month. That is obviously a straining of the law, and I hope your Lordships will agree that in future that should not be possible. I do not think it often happens now, but it does happen. It happened in innumerable cases during the suffragette agitation, but it ought not to happen again. When a person is summoned for an offence for which the penalty is small, the penalty for refusing to enter into recognisances should not be greater than that to which he is originally liable. Therefore, I move the insertion of the new subsection which stands in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 19, at end insert the, said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

On the last occasion I was with my noble friend in his suggestion, but this time I cannot be with him. The fallacy, if he will permit me to call it so, of the Amendment is that it assumes that there is always some definite offence rigidly charged before the man is called upon to enter into recognisances. I will take the very illustration which he gave,—some of the threats made by the suffragettes. They often proposed to do a number of things, some of which were small offences, but sometimes they accompanied that by saying: "We mean to burn down your house." Therefore, the magistrate, who is a judicious person, not taking the lady very seriously but seeing that she was threatening something very serious indeed, has said: "I bind you over in your own recognisance not to do this thing."

If there had been a small offence charged to the lady, it might have been very well to limit the penalty for breach of recognisance to that small offence. Very often the magistrate took into account not merely the little thing that arose at the beginning but the much larger thing—the burning down of the house—which had also been mentioned, and, instead of going into the specific offence, he said: "I think you ought to be ordered to enter into your own recognisances and recognisances against all the things which you have, threatened to do," there being no offence charged of the larger nature, but still an offence which was possible. In that case it would have been very inadequate if the penalty for breach of recognisance had been limited, to the little thing and had not extended to the larger thing to which the recognisance had been made to extend. The effect of the Amendment would be to repeal, or to alter, the existing law in Section 25 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which has been a very useful provision. I think it is much better not to put a limit on the penalty which would have to be imposed.

EARL RUSSELL

Will the, noble and learned Viscount tell me what limit there is to the sentence of imprisonment that can be inflicted in default of recognisance ?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Under Section 25 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act the Court may order a defendant to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour, or, in default, to be imprisoned for a period not exceeding six months if it is a Court of Quarter Sessions, or if it is some other court of summary jurisdiction, for a period not exceeding 14 days.

EARL RUSSELL

I still think, with all respect to the noble and learned Viscount, that that is a very heavy penalty where a person is not charged with having incited to commit an offence, or having attempted to commit an offence, but where he is merely bound over to keep the peace and he says, for reasons probably bad, that he will not be so bound. I submit that it is a dangerous power, and at any rate it seems to me that my Amendment as it stands would deal with an offence which was charged. If there was another offence to be charged, with a heavier penalty attaching to it, let it be charged, and the magistrate would be able to inflict a heavier penalty. The clause as it stands does enable you, by a side wind, to inflict a heavier penalty than any which can be inflicted for the offence which has been gone into in court. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, and other noble and learned Lords in this House, will see their way to support my Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is not merely a breach of the recognisance to be of good behaviour that is in question. I think it is much better to leave it as it is in the Bill.

VISCOUNT CAVE

If the noble Earl presses his Amendment, I should like to say that I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord Chancellor. Ex hypothesi the man has threatened to do something, or is expected to do something, dangerous to the community. He is asked to bind himself to be of good behaviour, and he refuses to do so. I am sure that a penalty such as is inflicted by Section 25 is by no means excessive for such a refusal as that.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 25, to insert the following new clause: "Notwithstanding anything in section six hundred and eighty of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (which relates to the prosecution of offences under the Merchant Shipping Acts), any offence whatsoever under section ten of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906 (which relates to the carrying of wood goods as deck cargo), may be prosecuted summarily."

The noble and learned Viscount said: The purpose of the new clause which I propose to your Lordships is to enable offences under the Merchant Shipping Act to be prosecuted summarily. At present there is a limit, and if the sentence is not within that limit there must be an indictment. There are a great many cases which could properly and advantageously be tried summarily, when ships come into port, and this Amendment would permit such cases to be tried summarily. For a long time this amendment of the law has been thought necessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 25 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26:

Search warrants for indecent articles.

26.—(1) If a justice is satisfied by information on oath made before him by an inspector of police or any other officer of police of equal or superior rank that there is reasonable cause to suspect that indecent or obscene articles are kept within any place within the jurisdiction of the justice for the purpose of being sold, published, distributed, exhibited or lent on hire, and whether in any case for purposes of gain or not, the justice may, if he thinks fit, issue a search warrant authorising the constable named in the warrant to enter the place named in the warrant at any time, and, if need he, by force, and to examine the said place and any person found therein, and search for any such articles therein, and to seize and remove any such articles found therein.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), after "hire,'' to insert "for an improper purpose." The noble Earl said: I do not know whether your Lordships have read Clause 26, but it is a very comprehensive clause. It gives wide powers to an inspector of police who has reasonable cause to suspect that indecent or obscene articles are kept for the purpose of being sold, published, distributed, exhibited, or lent on hire, whether for purposes of gain or not. In such cases the justice may issue a search warrant authorising the constable to remove any of these articles. Under this provision as it stanch pictures in the National Gallery that any inspector of police thought indecent might be seized and, removed. Your Lordships will notice that the provision does not apply only to an exhibition for the purposes of gain. The word "exhibited" is a very vague word. I have no objection to the police having very extensive powers in this matter; indeed, I am told that there are reasons why such powers are desirable; but I think it well that there should be some kind of indication as to the purposes for which these powers are to be, used, and the way in which they are to be used.

These words are very vague, and I have less objection to the vagueness of the words that I wish to insert. I should like to insert in line 35, after "lent on hire" the words "for an improper purpose." Those words are extremely wide, and they give the magistrate very full discretion as to whether he should act or not. They simply mean that he need not interfere in the case of pictures which are shown to decent company and which would not be dealt with in any way. Under my Amendment the magistrate would only interfere when he was satisfied that the purpose for which the articles were being used was, in fact, an improper purpose. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 35, after (" hire ") insert (" for an improper purpose ").—(Earl Russell.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is very little in this, but there is just enough to introduce an element into the burden of proof. Your Lordships will observe that the clause is limited. It is a clause enabling the police to get hold of certain articles, and it is limited to indecent articles. Things that are used for medical purposes are not, indecent and obscene, and it will be upon the parson who seeks to take them to satisfy the magistrate that they are indecent and obscene. If they are indecent and obscene, then prima facie the purpose for which they are used is indecent. You do not want the words of this Amendment. If they were inserted, they would enable a defence to be set up by somebody keeping extremely indecent photographs that he did not keep them for an improper purpose. That is just what we want to avoid. We want to prevent people keeping indecent things which will be sold and distributed among the public. We do not like the words which my noble friend proposes, because they would enable an artificial defence to be set up which might he very difficult to deal with and which would be quite out of place.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 (Form of information, etc., in criminal proceedings before justices):

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 11, leave out ("warrant or summons ") and insert (" summons, warrant, or other document ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29:

Power in make rules with respect to procedure of examining justices.

29. The Lord Chancellor may, subject to the express provisions of this and of any other Act, make rules for regulating the practice and procedure of examining justices on or in relation to proceedings for indictable offences, and with respect to the forms to be used in connection with any such proceedings, and generally for carrying into effect the enactments relating to such proceedings, and provision may be made by such rules for revoking or amending any of the forms contained in the Schedule to the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, and for substituting new form" for any of those forms.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit "all the forms contained in the Schedule to the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, and for substituting new forms for any of those forms "and to insert" forms which are directed or authorised by any statute to be used in connection with any such proceedings, and for substituting new forms for any of such forms." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is really a drafting amendment. Some of the forms now in use in connection with proceedings before examining justices do not depend upon the Indictable Offences Act and other Statutes.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 26, leave out from (" any ") to the end of the clause and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 34:

Amendment of Sections 42 and 43 of Offences against the Person Act, 1861.

34.—(1) Where a person has been convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction of an offence under Section forty-two of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861 (which imposes a penalty on persons committing any common assault or battery), he shall instead of being liable to a fine not exceeding, together with costs, the sum of five pounds, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds in addition to any costs which the court may order him to pay.

(2) The fine to which a person shall be liable on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction for an offence under Section forty-three of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861 (which imposes a penalty on persons committing an aggravated assault), shall, instead of being a fine not exceeding together with costs the sum of twenty pounds, be a fine not exceeding the sum of fifty pounds, and the offender shall in addition be liable to pay any costs which the court may order him to pay.

(3) A court of summary jurisdiction by which any person is convicted of an offence under cither of the enactments mentioned in this section may order the offender to enter into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour for a period not exceeding twelve months.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "five pounds" for "twenty pounds." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment proposes to make a change in the clause as it stands by providing that the word "twenty" should be deleted and the word "five" put in. The reason is that the word "twenty" puts a limitation on very useful and necessary provisions of the law. Under an old Statute, if more than £5 is the penalty for an offence it is the penalty of an offence of an aggravated character. The assault for which it is imposed is an aggravated assault, and when that is so the jurisdiction of the magistrate is restricted, so that he cannot deal, for instance, with a case in which a married woman can obtain a separation order under the Summary Jurisdiction Act on the ground that her husband has been convicted summarily of an aggravated assault. In order to give that jurisdiction it is better that the fine should be £5 than that it should be as much as £20. It is a technical point, but it is necessary in order to make the rest of the Bill workable.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 13, leave out (" twenty ") and insert (" five ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment, in subsection (3), after "may" to insert" in addition to imposing any penalty,'' is consequential.

Amendment moved— Line 27, after (" may ") insert (" in addition to imposing any penalty").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35:

Penalty for drunkenness while in charge of motor car and for reckless driving.

35. Any person who is drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place of any motor car within the meaning of the Motor Car Act, 1903, or who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of Section one of that Act (which relates to reckless driving) shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection: "(2) Any person who is convicted of driving a motor car on any highway or other public place while drunk shall in addition to any other penalty be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for a period of twelve months."

The noble Earl said: This is an extremely mixed grill of a Bill, as no doubt your Lordships have observed. It contains provisions on almost every possible subject, and we have now come to a provision which deals with motor cars. My own desire is to leave this clause out altogether, but should the clause stand I desire to see it amended. I am told that the proper course is for me to move my Amendment first and then to move to leave out the clause later on, whether the Amendment is accepted or not The effect of the Amendment is to provide that a person who is convicted of driving a motor car while drunk shall be disqualified from holding a licence for a period, of twelve months. When I raised this subject the other day I said that I was very reluctant to interfere in any way with the discretion of magistrates, and I do not like putting forward this proposal now because it interferes with their discretion. Your Lordships, however, must have noticed that the power which is given for disqualifying an unfit person from holding a licence for a certain period is a power which is far too rarely exercised. The Home Office refused a suggestion which I made that a circular should be issued on the subject.

In this Amendment I am not dealing with the imprisonment of persons, or with the sentences which are imposed by way of punishment on the person himself. I am dealing with the removal from the road of a dangerous person. I do not think we are going too far in laying it down as a rule that where a person has been convicted of this very serious offence, so dangerous to the public, he should for at least twelve months be kept off the roads. A letter has been written to The Times, and I am not sure whether your Lordships have not received a circular, in which Mr. Bees Jeffreys, who has had a great deal of experience of this subject, suggests that the offender should be disqualified until he shows signs of penitence. The difficulty of that is to find out the proper tribunal to say when he is fit to be turned loose again. I do not think it is an excessive proposal to say that for at least twelve months the man who has so abused his licence and endangered the life of his fellow subjects should be removed from the chance of doing it again. The clause will be much better for this provision, and I am not at all sure that the particular kind of reckless motorists of whom I am speaking will like this kind of punishment better than the punishment which is now provided by law.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 29, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Amendment proposes to do at once too little and too much. Too little because there may be cases so gross that the licence should be suspended for more than twelve months; and the Amendment prevents the offender being suspended beyond that period. It also proposes too much because offences differ very much. Magistrates must have a certain amount of discretion in the matter. A man may have been drunk in charge of a motor car, but it may have been a very trivial offence. It depends on the circumstances. It may also have been a very serious offence. I agree with the noble Earl that licences should be, suspended more freely, but if you make it a hard-and-fast condition, if you say that licences must be suspended for twelve months in every case, the result will be that magistrates will refuse to convict, and it is therefore better to take the course we have always taken and leave it to the discretion of magistrates in inflicting punishment.

EARL RUSSELL

The first objection of the noble and learned Viscount can easily be removed by slightly altering the wording of the Amendment. We could say" for a period of not less than twelve months." I feel the force of his second objection. I felt if when I put down the Amendment, and I feel it now, but I think the time has come when something should be done. It could be reconsidered in a couple of years if it was found to act harshly. I do not think, however, that any case of a man being drunk while driving a motor car can be considered a trivial one. It is, in itself, a very serious offence, and that sort of person is not fit to be on the road. Motorists who drive with some consideration are very much damaged in the public eye by the inconsiderate conduct of people like that. I should like to take your Lordships' opinion on this point, and I hope I shall get a large measure of support for dealing rather more drastically with these offences which are growing in numbers.

THE EARL OF DERBY

Does the noble Earl move the Amendment with the words "not less than twelve months" ?

EARL RUSSELL

Yes, I will move it in this form: "Any person who is convicted of driving a motor car on any highway or other public place while drunk shall in addition to any other penalty be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for a, period of not less than twelve months.''

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out Clause 35. The noble Earl said: It seems, I confess, a somewhat ungrateful course to take, after having put your Lordships practically to the trouble of a Division, to move that a clause amended in the way which I desired should be left out. I will submit to your Lordships in a few words the reasons why it seems to me that this clause should be omitted. I mentioned them on the Second Reading of his Bill, but I will recall them to your Lordships' recollection. Successive Governments have promised motorists for many years that there should be a new Motor Car Act. It is admitted by every one that the Motor Car Act, 1903, is out of date. A new Act has now. I believe, actually been drawn up for some considerable time and has not been introduced merely owing to the pressure of business upon the last Government. This clause properly belongs to that new Act, and ought properly to be considered in connection with the various modifications and provisions which that Act will make.

A particular grievance which motorists feel is that in return for what you might call the whips and scorpions of this clause they were promised some plums in the way of a withdrawal of the speed limit and other matters of that sort, which are now practically obsolete. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount to consider whether it is fair to keep this clause out of that Act and to put it in here by itself, unless we are to understand that all hope is to be abandoned of the introduction of a new and complete Motor Car Bill. I do not think it is right to take this legislation piecemeal. We might just as well put into this Bill the removal of the speed limit or any other fragment of a large subject. This does not seem to me the best way of legislating, but, having raised this question, I propose to leave it to your Lordships to treat it as you think fit. It does occur to me, however, that if this new Bill is prepared and can be introduced shortly we ought to wait until its introduction before this clause is added.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 35.—(Earl Russell.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think my noble friend is asking a little too much. Here is a practical provision which has been amended and made very stiff at his instance, giving at any rate some control over drunken persons driving cars. My noble friend now asks us not to introduce it, even in this enlarged form, because it will come in so much better in a general Motor Car Bill, which will give some privileges to motorists for which they are hoping. My noble friend himself hopes for them, but they may be deferred. "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick," and I am afraid my noble friend's heart may be sick before he sees that Bill passed in the present congestion of urgent business. I therefore propose to him that it would be better to leave this clause in its new form. It gives us, at any rate, a bird in the hand, and the bird in the bush which he desires is a very long way off.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36:

Prohibition on taking photographs, etc., in court.

38.—(1) Except with the leave of the judge, or if there is more than one judge, or the presiding or senior judge, no person shall—

  1. (a) take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any potrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or
  2. (b) publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;
and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

  1. (a) the expression "court" means any court of justice, including the court of a coroner;
  2. (b) the expression "judge" includes recorder, registrar, magistrate, justice and coroner;
  3. (c) a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court-room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, 797 portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court-room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "court'', where that word thirdly occurs, to insert "or a juror". The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships determined the other clay that photographs of the proceedings of a court were not to be taken without the permission of the Judge, and now the jurors say, with some force, that the provision ought to be framed in such a fashion as to include themselves. They do not like being photographed, for the same reasons as other persons concerned, and we propose to extend the benefits of the clause to them.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 3, after ("court ") insert ("or a juror ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 (Amendment of Schedule 1 of Children Act, 1908):

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next is merely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 39, leave out (" for ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule:

    cc797-8
  1. SECOND SCHEDULE. 74 words
    2. c798
  2. THIRD SCHEDULE. 181 words