§ Lord Harris of GreenwichMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that people with a substantial number of criminal convictions are entitled to he called for jury service; and what action they propose to remedy this.
§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)My Lords, on 25th March last my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced that it is the Government's intention to widen the area of disqualification from jury service to exclude anyone convicted of an imprisonable offence during the last 10 years, even where no immediate sentence of imprisonment was imposed. The Government intend to bring forward proposals on these lines at an appropriate stage of the Administration of Justice Bill.
§ Lord Harris of GreenwichMy Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer. It presumably means that Government amendments will be put down in another place. May I express my great pleasure in the reply given by the noble and learned Lord and ask two questions? First would he agree, as his Answer implies, that it is a very serious matter when people who have been convicted on 10, 12 or 14 separate occasions ate entitled to serve on juries and are only now not subject to imprisonment because of the extension of the range of non-custodial penalties in the past few years? Secondly, is the noble and learned Lord aware of the disturbing amount of evidence—admittedly, anecdotal—of tampering with juries, particularly in London, where it is suggested that bribes have been offered to individual jurors? Is he aware that this is causing a great deal of disquiet among many members of the Bar and others concerned with the administration of justice in London?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I agree that it is a very serious matter that persons with a criminal record—the noble Lord said, "indicted", but of course some of those get off—should sit on juries. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend proposes his change. Regarding the second part of the question, I am concerned about some evidence of the suborning of jurors. I caused my department to make inquiries in the latter part of last year. What one finds are the ones which do not come off. It is the ones which do come off which cause anxiety. 190 There is some reason to believe that there are such cases.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, suborning jurors is a serious criminal offence, is it not? Have there been convictions in recent years on this account?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I think there have been such convictions, but the one that I have in mind is that the person was guilty of an attempt and was, I think, sentenced for contempt of court. There is more than one case at present under investigation as to which I can give no more information. There have been cases. My investigations went wider than merely the question as to whether someone had been convicted. There were complaints where juries were discharged. Suborning took two forms. There were those who offered an inducement; there were those who offered a threat which of course raises different and perhaps even more serious issues.
§ Lord WigoderMy Lords, is not the real problem posed by the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, one of enforcement? Are there not believed to be already a number of people who are disqualified by reason of their previous convictions from serving on juries, who nevertheless have been sitting on them? Would it not help if the noble and learned Lord were to publicise the fact that it is a criminal offence for a person to serve on a jury when he knows that he is not elicible to do so?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, it is the case that it is a criminal offence to sit on a jury under a disqualification. The present disqualification rules—I hope I get them right because I am speaking without reference to the authority—are contained in the second schedule to the Juries Act 1974. There arc two types of disqualification. There is a lifetime disqualification and there is a 10-year disqualification. I cannot say that I would know of cases where this has happened or whether there have been successful prosecutions. There are grounds to believe that it can have happened. However, without making rather detailed inquiries into the previous history of individual jurors, which would certainly give rise to a good deal of protest, it is not very easy to make quite sure that, say, eight or nine years ago they were not convicted and sent to prison for three months.