HL Deb 26 July 1967 vol 285 cc880-1
LORD MOLSON

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the average period between the conviction of an accused person at quarter sessions and the hearing of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords for those appeals from quarter sessions which were in the list last week for hearing by the Court of Appeal, the average interval between conviction and hearing was 21 weeks.

LORD MOLSON

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say, in that case, how it came about that when the "Rolling Stones" were convicted on June 29 it was arranged that their appeal should be taken before the end of July?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, there are several things which have to be taken into account. The noble Lord has referred only to appeals. Most of the work of the Court consists of hearing applications for leave to appeal. Moreover, the noble Lord has not distinguished between appeals against conviction and appeals against sentence. In the case of an appeal against a long sentence, there is obviously no particular reason for expedition. In the case of an appeal against conviction where there is a short sentence, there is obviously good reason for expedition. These factors are taken into account by the Court. Moreover, in the "Rolling Stones" case the court of trial had itself granted a certificate that there was a point of law involved. This made it unnecessary, of course, to obtain leave for appeal. Those cases are naturally taken sooner.