HL Deb 31 March 1938 vol 108 cc559-68

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 2:

Extension of jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person shall not, in relation to any Court of Quarter Sessions, be deemed to be a legally qualified Chairman of the Court unless he is— (b) a person who is or has been a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a Judge of the Supreme Court, an Official Referee attached to that Court, a Railway and Canal Commissioner, or a Judge of a County Court, and who has been elected by the Court of Quarter Sessions as Chairman or Deputy Chairman thereof; (3) Where at any session of a Court of Quarter Sessions having a legally qualified Chairman no legally qualified Chairman is present, the Court shall nevertheless have jurisdiction to try a person charged with any of the offences specified in the First Schedule to this Act if the Court is presided over by a justice of the peace for the county deputed to preside at that session by a legally qualified Chairman of the Court with the approval of the Lord Chancellor:

LORD ROCHE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out all words after "a person who is or has been" down to and including "County Court" and insert "the holder of an office mentioned in the next following subsection." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know what the convenient course would be, but I have an Amendment which to some extent covers the ground of an Amendment by the noble Lord on the Woolsack. It goes further, however, and I do not know whether he would like me to deal now with my Amendments, which stand or fall together. I can explain to your Lordships very shortly what they are. They all depend upon one matter. When the Bill was before your Lordships in Committee, a clause was inserted giving a list or category of persons who were to be deemed to be legally qualified for the purpose of having the extended jurisdiction conferred on certain Quarter Sessions under the Bill. I ventured to suggest, for the consideration of the noble Lord on the Woolsack, that that category should include King's Counsel, and my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin suggested that it should at any rate include Recorders of boroughs, whether they were sitting in their own boroughs or whether they were sitting, as they very often do, as Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. The Lord Chancellor most kindly consented to consider those matters, but it was very obvious, I think, from what he said at the time, that he felt difficulty about accepting them, and thought that the suggestions were wider than he would be able to adopt. The result of his consideration, which I am sure was very mature, appears to have borne out that conclusion.

I have ventured, so to speak, to steal the thunder of my noble friend Lord Atkin with a modification, and I am suggesting in these Amendments that the category should include the Recorders of the important boroughs in the country, which of course includes cities. That is a suggestion which I hope the Lord Chancellor will he able to accept, and I gather that he may be able to do so. The division is in a sense logical enough, because, as your Lordships probably know, there are a very large number of Recorders in this country. Many small places which were once of much greater relative importance possess the privilege of a Court of Quarter Sessions, and so you have towns of five and ten thousand inhabitants who have their Recorders. They are remunerated on a scale which dates from earlier times and you will not be surprised to know that the most experienced members of the profession do not hold those offices. Apart from that, it is quite obvious that these Courts as a whole are not fitted for dealing with such serious cases as forgery and perjury, if only for the reason that the jurors are drawn from a very limited body, and as they know all about the matter already it is not surprising that you will not as a rule get the most satisfactory verdict.

I have therefore ventured to restrict my Amendment to boroughs containing, according to the last published census, a population of not less than 50,000 persons, the Recorderships of which are held by criminal lawyers of great experience of circuits, who have gone through the Recorderships of minor towns, and are therefore well equipped for dealing with the matters entrusted to them under this Bill. I therefore beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. It is really consequential on my second Amendment, because it is a definition clause, which I am happy to say has received the attention and care of the Parliamentary draftsman, who was good enough to look at my Suggestion, and this is the form in which he thinks my Amendment can be presented to the House.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 7, leave out from ("been") to the end of line 11, and insert ("the holder of an office mentioned in the next following subsection").—(Lord Roche.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have had an opportunity of carefully considering the two Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roche, which, as he has already told you, result only in this: that the number of persons who are to be legally qualified to be Chairmen of a Court of Quarter Sessions is in some measure extended. It is impossible to get everybody to agree as to the precise persons who will have sufficient qualifications to act as Chairmen of the Courts of Quarter Sessions for an extended jurisdiction. It is very largely a matter of discretion. But on the last occasion I listened with care to the arguments put forward by my noble and learned friend and by Lord Atkin, and I am prepared on behalf of the Government to assent to the two Amendments which stand in his name and therefore to omit altogether as unnecessary and futile now the second Amendment on the Paper which stands in my name. The Amendments are not otherwise than unimportant in the true sense and I think I might even venture to put the Amendments together.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 29, at the beginning, insert ("in the case of the Court of Quarter Sessions for a borough containing according to the last published census for the time being a population of not less than fifty thousand").—(Lord Roche.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 31, at end insert— ("(3) The offices referred to in paragraph (b) of the last: foregoing subsection are the following offices, that is to say, member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Judge of the Supreme Court, Official Referee attached to that Court, Railway and Canal Commissioner, Judge of a County Court, His Majesty's Attorney-Genera], His Majesty's Solicitor-General, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Recorder of any borough containing according to the last published census for the time being a population of not less than fifty thousand").—(Lord Roche.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "with the approval of the Lord Chancellor" and insert "and the justice so deputed is either a person who holds or has held one of the offices mentioned in the last foregoing subsection or a person approved by the Lord Chancellor as being qualified to act as such a deputy." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the next Amendment is an Amendment almost entirely of a drafting character. The reason for it is this, that it is designed to make the approval of the Lord Chancellor to a particular Chairman unnecessary where the member who is to be charged with the duty of presiding at that session is already one of the persons who holds or has held one of the offices mentioned in the above-mentioned schedule. In other words, supposing the Chairman legally qualified is unable to act and a legally qualified Chairman is not present, the Court shall nevertheless have jurisdiction to try persons charged with the offences mentioned in the First Schedule if the Court is presided over by a person who holds or has held one of the offices entitling him to act as a legally qualified Chairman and the justice so deputed is either a person who holds one of the offices mentioned or a person approved by the Lord Chancellor as being qualified to act as such a deputy. It is not much more than a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 39, leave out ("from Court") to the end of line 40, and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15:

Provisions as to appeals from the Mayor's and City of London Court.

15.—(1) An appeal from proceedings in the Mayor's and City of London Court not within the jurisdiction of a County Court shall lie to the Court of Appeal in all cases in which such an appeal could have been brought if the proceedings had been in the High Court; and subject to rules of court, an appeal from any such proceedings may be heard and determined by the Court of Appeal in like manner in all respects as if the proceedings had been in the High Court.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert: .—(1) All appeals from causes and proceedings in the Mayor's and City of London Court shall be to the Court of Appeal. (2) In the case of any such cause or proceedings as aforesaid in which, in accordance with Section eight of the Mayor's and City of London Court Act, 1920, the procedure of the Supreme Court (as applied or modified by the rules made for the purposes of that Section) has been adopted, an appeal shall lie in the like circumstances in all respects as if the cause or proceedings had been in the High Court; and in the case of any other cause or proceedings in the Mayor's and City of London Court an appeal shall lie in the like circumstances in all respects as if the cause or proceedings had been in a County Court.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to leave out subsection (1), and to insert two subsections relating purely to proceedings in what is commonly called the Mayor's Court, which is the technical name for the Mayor's and City of London Court. The Bill as amended in Committee dealt with these proceedings in the Mayor's Court, and drew a distinction between the cases which were within the jurisdiction of the County Court and those which were not. There was a little difficulty there because Clause 16 of the Bill extends the powers of the County Courts and, having granted that extension of jurisdiction, it was necessary to determine how we were to deal with appeals from the Courts and whether, when we drew the distinction between those which were within the jurisdiction of the County Court and those which were not, we were bearing in mind Clause 16, which extends the jurisdiction of the County Courts but only subject to the qualification that the jurisdiction so extended was permissive in this sense, that the defendant was entitled to object.

The position at present is that if a plaintiff brings an action for more than £100 in the Mayor's Court, the defendant has a choice between allowing the action to proceed as if it is a County Court action or adopting a procedure similar to that of the High Court, and that has been in existence for many years. The proposal of this Amendment is that if the defendant chooses to allow the action to proceed as a County Court action, an appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be governed by the provisions applicable to an appeal from the County Court. Therefore in that respect the Mayor's Court would be treated just the same as the County Court. But, if on the other hand the defendant, as he is entitled to do, chooses to adopt a procedure similar to that of the High Court, then an appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be treated just as if it were governed by the same provisions as an appeal from the decision of a High Court Judge. I may mention that the City authorities approve of this proposal.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 24, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16:

Extension of jurisdiction of County Court.

16. The amounts by reference to which the jurisdiction of a County Court in actions of contract or tort or for money recoverable by Statute is limited by Sections forty and forty-one of the County Courts Act, 1934, shall be increased by two hundred pounds, and accordingly for references in those sections to one hundred pounds there shall be substituted references to three hundred pounds:

Provided that if the amount claimed exceeds one hundred pounds, the defendant may within such time as may be prescribed by County Court rules give notice that he objects to the action being tried in the County Court, and, where such notice is given, the Judge shall order that the action be transferred to the High Court.

LORD CARNOCK moved to substitute "one hundred pounds" for "two hundred pounds." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved simply in consequence of an Amendment which I brought forward during the Committee stage. It was an Amendment originally to strike out Clause 16 altogether on the ground that the increase in the jurisdiction of the County Court from £100 to £300 would put an unfair burden on the County Court and bring a different type of litigant into the Court, which was never intended. On the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I withdrew my Amendment and have put down the present Amendment, which is to the effect that the jurisdiction of the County Court should be raised to £200, and not to £300 as originally proposed in the Bill. The Amendments in my name to the Second Schedule are to produce the same effect.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 40 leave out ('"two") and insert ("one").—(Lord Carnock.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I indicated on the previous occasion when this somewhat important alteration of Clause 16 was moved that I would give it the most careful consideration. My impression then was—and it is now—that on the whole it would be wise to accept this Amendment. As I have previously mentioned in this House, I think it is of vital importance that the proceedings in County Courts in reference to poor persons and the speedy disposal of matters with which they are concerned shall not be in any way delayed by any amendments which the Legislature may make with regard to the jurisdiction which County Courts at present possess. There is a danger that if the County Court jurisdiction were extended from £100 to £300 there would be a certain number of actions which would continue in the County Courts with the consent of the defendant and would last a substantial time, and which might in some cases interfere with the speedy disposal of poor persons' actions. As your Lordships know, poor people bring actions very often for quite small sums—£10 or even less, and often find it very difficult to attend the Court. They are not represented by counsel, and it is most desirable that nothing should be done that might tend to put those persons to any disadvantage.

It is for those reasons that I am prepared on behalf of the Government to accept this limitation of the extent to which the jurisdiction is being enlarged, and to make it a jurisdiction only up to £200. That is £100 more than the present jurisdiction, it being still the case that the defendant can object. This increase of jurisdiction is to some extent tentative. It will have to be carefully watched. If it is found in fact that it leads to no bad consequences, such as we must all be anxious to avoid, it might be a reasonable thing to go a step further and to add the extra £100. But I think it is safer in making an experiment of this kind to limit it in the way which the noble Lord proposes and, on behalf of the Government I accept his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CARNOCK

My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 1, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Carnock.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert: (2) Nothing in this section shall apply to causes and proceedings in the Mayor's and City of London Court, and in Section one hundred and eighty-six of the County Courts Act, 1934, the reference to the jurisdiction of a County Court shall be construed accordingly.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a somewhat technical matter, and I would like to explain it as shortly as I can, but it involves a rather curious state of things. The Mayor's Court already has jurisdiction without any limit whatever in all cases where the whole cause of action arises within the City. Therefore, the main part of Clause 16 increasing the County Court's jurisdiction from £100 to £200 is not needed at all so far as the Mayor's Court is concerned, and the proviso is inapplicable to an action where the whole cause lies within the City. But if the clause were to be applied to the Mayor's Court, the plaintiff would be for the first time entitled to bring an action in that Court exceeding £100 and going up to £200 where only part of the cause of action arose within the City. The difficulty is this. The right of the defendant to have an action transferred to the High Court in such a case would depend on whether the cause of action arose wholly within the City or only partly within the City, and this would introduce a fresh complication into a jurisdiction which is already complicated enough. It has been thought, on careful consideration, that it is desirable to insert the additional words which are in the Amendment standing in my name in order to prevent this increase of jurisdiction applying to cases and proceedings in the Mayor's Court for the reasons I have stated. In regard to actions arising wholly in the City it is not wanted, and with regard to causes of action which only arise partly in the City there is no provision at present in the Mayor's Court rules to restrict the bringing of actions against defendants resident outside the City.

In the County Courts, as I dare say your Lordships know, since 1937 a working man resident outside the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be subject to an action commencing in the County Court which is not in his own district. In other words, in regard to a working man, a different system applies to that which applies in other cases. You have to find your defendant and sue him in the County Court of the district in which he resides. The Mayor's Court in the City of London has not that provision, and having regard to the curious fact I have stated as to the unlimited jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court in cases where the cause of action arises wholly within the City, it has been thought best, at any rate until the Mayor's Court rules in respect of suing defendants are somewhat altered, to insert the provision that nothing in this clause is to apply to that Court and that in Section 186 of the County Court Act, 1934, the reference to the jurisdiction of a County Court shall be construed accordingly. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Second Schedule [Consequential and minor amendments]:

LORD CARNOCK

My Lords, the Amendments to this Schedule are consequential, and I beg to move them together.

Amendments moved—

Page 17, line 14, leave out ("three") and insert ("two")

Page 17, line 19, leave out ("three") and insert ("two")

Page 17, line 21, leave out ("three") and insert ("two")

Page 17, line 38, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Carnock.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.