HL Deb 28 October 1943 vol 129 cc458-62

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the conduct before the Hereford Juvenile Court of the proceedings against Craddock and others, with particular reference to the responsibility for the irregularities which led to the finding of guilt against Craddock being quashed by the Divisional Court.

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I move the Resolution which is on the Paper. Your Lordships will know that, arising out of a hearing in the Juvenile Court in Hereford, some difficult questions have emerged and that the Government have asked Lord Justice Goddard to be good enough to conduct an inquiry into the matter. The High Court, with the Lord Chief Justice presiding, has already decided what came before it, but neither the police who were prosecuting nor the clerk to the justices, who was really responsible for giving the magistrates legal advice, made any affidavits, and at present it is rather difficult to determine how the blame for these irregularities in the administration of justice should be distributed. Of course, the Divisional Court has finally decided that there were irregularities, and nobody seeks to challenge that, but it is important to know how the police stand in the matter and how the clerk to the justices stands. For myself, I may say, as I am charged with the responsibility of looking after the Commission of the Peace, it would be of great assistance to me in determining what would be the proper course to take in regard to these justices.

Lord Justice Goddard has pointed out that, to enable him to carry this inquiry through satisfactorily, it is desirable that he should have the power to require those who come before him to give evidence on oath and, if necessary, have the power to send for witnesses. He regards that as necessary, and I think it is a most reasonable view. That can only be obtained by passing a Resolution in these terms under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. A similar Resolution is being moved in the House of Commons, and I hope that in both cases it will be adopted as a convenient and practical step towards the inquiry. I beg to move.

Moved, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the conduct before the Hereford Juvenile Court of the proceedings against Craddock and others, with particular reference to the responsibility for the irregularities which led to the finding of guilt against Craddock being quashed by the Divisional Court.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD MORRIS

My Lords, may I just say a word of welcome for this Motion? Needless to say, I entirely approve of it, but it is a little unfortunate, as it is a matter of urgent public importance, that it should be moved in a House of less than half a dozen members and at this hour when practically, as far as I know, no notice has been given of it. The first I saw of the matter was when the Papers were circulated to members of the House this morning. This is, of course, a matter of the greatest importance. As it is, in a sense, sub judice, I do not want to say anything more at the moment, but it would be foolish to suppose that this particularly distressing and, if I may say so, stupid Hereford incident is in any way isolated. It has been going on for years up and down the country. I have suggested not only here but elsewhere that these great unpaid—not only great unpaid, but also highly unsuited for this very skilled work—should be replaced by men like Mr. Snell, the London magistrate, Mr. Claude Mullins, or trained probationary officers, not some retired old dodderers of either sex for whom it is sought to find some job to keep them occupied, or some political office. I hope, after the Tribunal has sat under Lord Justice Goddard, the Government will see their way to find time for a proper and full debate not only here but in another place, so that these people and their qualifications—or rather their lack of qualifications—for the extremely important work they do, can be gone into. This kind of thing is done in the United States by paid justices and qualified people, and in that respect, as in so many others, we might do well if we took a leaf out of the United States' book.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord should make a grievance of the fact that not many of your Lordships waited until this late hour because we do not usually meet on this day.

LORD MORRIS

The noble Lord misunderstands me. I did not complain that there was no one here to hear what the noble Viscount on the Woolsack said. What I did complain of was that the matter had been brought on, first of all, with little notice and, secondly, at such a late hour when it was fairly apparent that few noble Lords would be here.

LORD STRABOLGI

I am within the recollection of your Lordships. The noble Lord said that only six of your Lordships were present, and I was explaining the reason for that. I had intended to say something on rather different lines, but tending in the same direction. I do not think my noble friends with whom I have discussed this matter will agree with Lord Morris in his sweeping condemnation of justices of the peace up and down the country. That is far too sweeping, because here and there there are men who are past their work or are in other ways unsuitable. I do not know how many thousands of justices there are in England and Wales, but the percentage of unsuitable ones is not high. At the same time I believe the Lord Chancellor would find that the public are exercised at the state of affairs which was disclosed in what is known as the Hereford case, and that they are expecting, not a debate in your Lordships' House at this stage, or in the other House, but a rather wider inquiry.

The Tribunal proposed by the noble Viscount on the Woolsack deals with the one case of Hereford. That obviously is required and is not to be opposed, but the general public, I submit, expect an inquiry into, first, the working of juvenile courts—on the whole the evidence seems to be in their favour, but there are certain matters capable of improvement, and the whole question is of very great importance indeed—and, secondly, into the system of appointing justices. I believe there is dissatisfaction very widely felt throughout the country about that, and I believe the Lord Chancellor, if he makes inquiries, will find I am not overstating the case. There is a complaint that has been going on, as the Lord Chancellor and his predecessors know, for many years, from the Labour movement in the country, using the term in its wider sense—the leaders of the political Labour party, the great trade unions, and the working class generally—that they have not a fair representation on the magisterial benches, especially in the rural districts. That is, if you like, a sectional complaint, but it is widely felt among people who number millions in the country. I hope it will be possible for assurances to be given that some form of inquiry of a much wider kind will in due course be instituted into these matters.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I assure noble Lords who have spoken that I shall give careful attention to what they have said. What Lord Strabolgi has said refers to a different matter from that involved in this particular inquiry. May I just explain to Lord Morris that the reason why this Motion has been put down in both Houses to-day is that it is very desirable that the inquiry Lord Justice Goddard has been good enough to undertake should proceed promptly? Nothing could be worse than to let the matter drag on. I am conscious of the criticism the noble Lord makes, but that was the reason. It was not any desire to get a decision in a small House. It just worked out like that. I hope therefore your Lordships will be good enough now to pass the Resolution.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned.