§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions (Cmnd. 4153), they will now appoint a Departmental Committee or some similar body, with comparable terms of reference, to inquire into and to report upon the work of the magistrates' courts and to make recommendations.]
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will give careful consideration to the future administration of the magistrates' courts in the light of the Government's acceptance in principle of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions. For the moment all available resources have to be concentrated on the reorganisation of the higher courts, in order to bring the Royal Commission's proposals into effect as soon as possible. As soon as we are in a position to do so we shall consult those concerned with the magistrates' courts about the administration of those courts, but we do not consider that it will be necessary to appoint a Committee for this purpose.
LORD MERTHYRMy Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord for that Answer, may I suggest that it might be sensible to start the review of magistrates' courts, so as to overlap with the carrying out of the proposals of the Beeching Commission?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, the magistrates' courts were outside the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, and we must concentrate our resources at the moment on implementing the recommendations of that Commission. I can assure the House that no conclusion will be come to about the administration of the magistrates' courts without full consultation, particularly with the Magistrates' Association of which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is the distinguished chairman.
§ LORD ROYLEMy Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether he is aware that among leading magistrates in the country there is an opinion that 28 years is a long time since a Royal Commission reported on magistrates' courts? In view of the tremendous growth in the work of the courts many of them feel that it is time for a complete reappraisal.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I should not have thought that there was any case for a complete reappraisal so far as the nature of the justices' work was concerned. Their procedure is in part the subject of the Criminal Justice Act. So far as their accommodation and staff are concerned, I agree that these will have to be looked into.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, will my noble and learned friend be inclined to agree that the magistrates' courts are fulfilling very worthily a very necessary function, and that the less they are interfered with at the present moment the better? Secondly, in view of the enormous number of cases that come before them, would it not be possible to increase the establishment of magistrates in some of the courts?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am sorry, my Lords, but I did not hear the last part of the noble Lord's question.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, I asked whether my noble and learned friend would agree that in view of the enormous number of additional cases that are now coming before magistrates' courts—my own court, for instance, deals with over 100 cases each Friday—an increase in their establishment, so that there would be more justices available to deal with 1129 cases on the rota would perhaps be an improvement.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I agree of course about the valuable work done by the magistrates, and in view of the fact that 98 per cent. of all criminal cases are decided by the justices the taxpayer, in particular, has every reason to be grateful to them. So far as their complement is concerned, that is being increased in proportion to the increase in work.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, will my noble and learned friend agree that the functions of the magistrates' courts have been greatly increased and that the findings of the Royal Commission, which are now more than 20 years old, may not be appropriate? In particular, there is the finding of the Royal Commission that what was wanted in a magistrate were certain requirements of character and intelligence and an ability "to follow proceedings in court". Will my noble friend agree that it is time we had a new review which would perhaps set down a different standard? Will he also agree that there is no source of information at present about the composition of the body of magistrates, other than that contained in the Royal Commission's Report of more than 20 years ago?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, it is, I think, getting a little late to start appointing Royal Commissions in the lifetime of this Government. But, having read, and continually having in mind, the Reports of both Royal Commissions, I can see nothing really wrong with them; and, as my noble friend knows, the appointment of justices is a matter on which every Lord Chancellor takes an infinity of trouble. I know justices who think that they are appointed by somebody in my office, but in fact no justice is ever appointed without my personally seeing all the details about him, and I think there is no more important work that the Lord Chancellor does.
§ LORD WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether he is aware that there are many months between the commission of an alleged offence and the case coming before the magistrates—so long, in fact, 1130 that sometimes crucial evidence is forgotten?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, that is so in some places, and in some places it is not a question of more justices; it is a question that there simply are not enough courts. That is a question which we certainly have to consider.