§ 3.3 p.m.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the reasons for the proposed alterations in the functions and powers of assessors in capital cases in the Federation of Malaya.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)My Lords, it became apparent last year that the system of trial with assessors in the High Courts of the Malay States was not working satisfactorily. Re-trials had to be ordered in a large number of cases, particularly those arising from the emergency, and it appeared that the views of the assessors in a number of cases were not in accordance with the evidence. The Federation Government accordingly appointed a Committee, under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice, to consider the method of trial in the High Courts and to make recommendations. There had been some public advocacy of the introduction of the jury system, and the Committee's attention was drawn to this aspect of the matter in its terms of reference.
After a detailed examination of the position the Committee recommended that the functions of the assesssors should be limited to giving their opinions on matters of fact. The main reasons for this recommendation were that the assessor system was not operating in the best interests of justice, and that there were substantial objections to the introduction of trial by jury. It was clear that assessors were being influenced by factors other than the evidence produced in court. Consideration was given to the introduction of the jury system, but it was found that there were not a sufficient number of qualified jurymen within reasonable reach of the assize towns, that trial by jury did 965 not operate with particular success in the British Settlements, and that the limited number of jurymen who would be available in the Malay States would be subject to the same influences which had led to the unsatisfactory working of the assessor system. The Committee reported in July, 1953, and after further consideration the Federation Government appointed a further Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the Attorney-General, to examine the provisions of the draft legislation proposed. After certain amendments the new legislation was fully debated and passed by the Federal Legislative Council on the 28th January this year.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that long and detailed reply, I should like to ask him whether it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that this step, which virtually places the sole power of decision in the hands of the judge, is a proper step to take, in view of the fact that the Federation of Malaya is having art ever-increasing amount of constitutional self-government. Secondly, I should like to ask the noble Earl how he thinks this system is going to work, if one part of the Federation has a full-blown jury system, in accord with our own, and the other part has no system of jury at all and now no system of assessors, such as has been in force for at least one hundred years.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Loris, the jury system at present operating out there operates in Penang, Malacca and Singapore. For reasons which I gave in the course of my reply, I do not think it would be possible to get the jury system to operate in the other assize towns of the Federation of Malaya. As regards the noble Lord's first question, I should perhaps make it clear that the sole power will not really rest in the hands of the judge. Instead of returning general verdicts of "Guilty" or "Not guilty," the assessors in future are to give their opinions on any particular issues of fact on which the judge may consult them. Having considered and recorded tie opinions of the assessors, the judge will then give his verdict. But he is not bound to conform to the opinions of the assessors, even when they agree with each other. However, there are two important safe- 966 guards, both in favour of the accused. The first is that when the judge disagrees with either of the assessors he is bound to record his reasons for so doing; and secondly, when he disagrees with both of them, the accused is automatically considered to have appealed to the Court of Appeal.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, I shall consult with my noble friends on this side of the House to ascertain their views on this matter, but I regard the statement that has been made to-day as of great importance. This applies only in capital cases, and, naturally, it affects men's lives. May I ask the noble Earl whether he will answer the further question I asked—namely, how there can be one part of the Federation, the settlement of Penang and Malacca, with a full-blown jury system, and the other parts with no equivalent system at all? The noble Earl did not reply to that point.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERI apologise to the noble Lord. In Malacca and Penang the position is much easier because there is a larger European population.