JUDICIAL VACANCY. (Hansard, 9 May 1933)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that a vacancy in the number of Puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying this His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancy accordingly, in pursuance of Section 11 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. The position under that section is that if within one year of any such Address as is prescribed by the Act a vacancy occurs in the judicial Bench, it can be filled up in a normal way. If, on the other hand, a vacancy occurs after the lapse of a year, a Resolution of both House of Parliament is required to enable the vacancy to be filled, provided the Judges are not reduced below the number of fifteen. Your Lordships on the 16th February of last year passed such a Resolution, which had already been agreed to in another place, and had the present vacancy occurred before the 16th of February of this year, it would not have been necessary to trouble your Lordships, but as the vacancy now under consideration happened on the 26th April, the necessary Resolution must be forthcoming to enable the late Judge's successor to be appointed.

I should like to say how much both on public and on private grounds the tragic passing of Mr. Justice MacCardie is regretted. He had been on the Bench nearly seventeen years, had shown himself to be a great master of case law, and had, by his personal charm, endeared himself to a large circle of friends. His untimely death being the reason for the Motion, permit me to point out to your Lordships why it is necessary to fill the vacancy. Although the Court of Appeal, the Chancery and the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Divisions are well abreast of their work, there are unfortunately considerable arrears in the King's Bench Division where the vacancy exists. A steady increase of such arrears has occurred in the last three years. On the 31st December, 1930, they amounted to 1,150; in 1931 to 1,189; and in 1932 to 1,253; although in this last year, as your Lordships are aware, Mr. Justice du Parcq was appointed as an additional 794 Judge. Over and above that Commissioners were appointed to deal with much of the heavy work on circuit. As a result many more cases were tried— 1,372 in 1932 as against 1,071 in 1931. At the same time more cases were settled out of Court— 1,392 in 1932 as against 1,314 in 1931. Notwithstanding, therefore, the great increase in trials, and notwithstanding the increase in settlements out of Court, which in my view arise largely by reason of the long delays in trial, the arrears thus continue to mount. These figures not only show the aid given by the appointment of an additional Judge early in 1932, but also the imperative necessity of maintaining the number of Judges as it was until recently.

Let me now give the position of the King's Bench Division at the end of April. There were 227 special jury cases standing for trial. Special jury actions being tried last week were set down for trial in June last, and as far back as June of last year there were 404 common jury cases standing for trial. Cases in the list being tried last week were set down in November last. There were seventy-four non-jury cases standing for trial. Cases being tried last week were set down for trial in February and March of this year. Many cases from this list were taken last sittings by Judges of the Chancery Division and cases from this list have also been taken by the New Procedure Judge and by the Commercial Judge when they had not any new procedure or commercial cases to try. There were 119 cases in the New Procedure list. Two of these are special jury, one is a common jury and 116 are non-jury actions, none of these 119 cases being included in the figures I have given to your Lordships. There were 53 cases in the Crown Paper. The Court is now sitting and the cases now being heard were set clown for hearing as far back as October last. There were 77 cases in the Civil Paper. Cases now being heard were set down as far back as November of last year. Two Courts heard Civil Paper cases during part of last sitting. Finally, the criminal appeal lists are fairly well up-to-date, but it is to be observed that the number of criminal appeals has increased considerably in recent years. Last year there were 703 persons who wished to appeal to the Court; that is, almost 795 double the number of persons who wished to appeal in 1929.

Two Judges are now at Leeds, two at Manchester and one at the Central Criminal Court. To show your Lordships the difficult position we are now in, I should mention that before the end of these sittings some of the Judges will have to leave London for the summer circuits. One Judge goes to Aylesbury next week, and a Judge will have to go to the Central Criminal Court on the 18th May. Another Judge goes on the North Wales circuit on the 24th May, yet another goes on the Western circuit on the 25th May, and still another goes on the South Wales circuit on the 29th May. During the first week of next sittings ten Judges will be away on circuit, and only four Judges will, as at present arranged, remain in London to do the work of the whole of Trinity sittings. While it is easy to criticise the administration of the King's Bench Division, the critics should remember the extraordinary difficulty in arranging the course of business there. To begin with, as your Lordships know, large numbers of the Judges have to go on circuit, and this year the circuits have been of a very heavy character, especially at Liverpool and at Manchester. At the latter town, although a Commisioner of Assize was appointed to assist, the lists could not be finished by Easter and many cases had to go over to the following term.

Your Lordships will agree that this is a state of affairs which rightly gives all those responsible for the administration of the law great anxiety. It ought to be our boast that every subject of His Majesty should have a proper chance, and within a reasonable time, of obtaining his rights in a Court of Justice. As far as the King's Bench Division is concerned, it cannot be said to be in this happy position. It is urged that the practice and procedure of the law is not only too expensive, but that people have to wait for months before their cases are heard. In my view, when a case is ready for trial, that the parties should have to wait ten months before it is reached is something approaching a denial of justice. There are people who purposely obtain an extended credit by taking advantage of these delays.

796 Again, consider the case which is so familiar nowadays, of a motor car accident. It is difficult enough for a, witness to give a coherent account of it within a short period of its occurrence. If he has to wait eight or ten months before he gives his evidence, how can he be expected to remember what has happened? It is perfectly true that he may have given his statement to the solicitor within a fortnight or three weeks of the event, which serves for his examination in chief ten months later, but it is of very little help when it comes to his turn for cross-examination. It is probable that a great deal of the delay in the King's Bench Division is due to these motor car accidents, and the figures, if they were known, would astonish both your Lordships and the public. Of the whole of the special jury cases tried in England and Wales last year, including London, over half— to be accurate 57 per cent.— were in respect of personal injury actions. In the case of common jury cases, the percentage was even higher; seven out of every ten common jury actions were in respect of personal injury. Not only do these cases clog the Courts, but they themselves, by reason of the long delay, do not get the prompt consideration that they ought to receive.

I do not propose to weary your Lordships at the present moment with the remedies for this unfortunate and unhappy state of affairs. In the near future your consent will be asked to the passing of a Bill dealing both with grand juries and with the question of whether the right to a jury in civil actions should be at the discretion of the Judge, and therefore I will not trouble you with statistics at the present moment. Suffice it to say there can hardly be anybody who is not of opinion that some remedy should be found for the present state of affairs. Recently the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, the Master of the Rolls, has been presiding over a Committee which has made, and is continuing to make, valuable suggestions for the speeding-up and cheapening of litigation, some of which it is hoped will soon be translated into law.

No doubt a large number of people in this kingdom well qualified to judge think that an increase in the number of Judge; is a necessary part of any scheme of legal reform. At the moment your Lordship; 797 will excuse me from expressing an opinion on this, especially having regard to the financial stringency through which we are passing, but it is a matter which some day will have to receive the most careful consideration. Whatever measures, however, may be taken in the future, it is at any rate imperative that the present vacancy should be filled up. The estimated cost of appointing a new Judge is as follows: The statutory salary is £5,000 a year. This has been cut down by the Economy Act to £4,000. To the Judge's salary must be added the salary of the Judge's clerk— namely, £400 per annum, carrying Civil Service bonus. Let me remind you that the Judges, like all His Majesty's subjects, pay Income Tax. I had hoped that the Lord Chief Justice would be in his place in this House to support the present Motion. I have had a letter from him saying he is not able to be here, although he desires me to say that he is in cordial agreement with the Motion. A similar Motion was passed in another place last right without a Division. My Lords, I beg to move.