Judicial Proceedings (Hansard, 23 May 1985)

§ Baroness Macleod of Borve
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, so far as regards criminal proceedings in the Crown Court, and despite an increase during the past five years of approximately 50 per cent. in the workload, during the past five years significant improvement has been made in the interval between committal and arraignment. Civil proceedings are currently the subject of the major inquiry known as the civil justice review, as to which I issued a recent press release.

§ Baroness Macleod of Borve
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his very helpful reply. Will he consider increasing the fines and the length of imprisonment which the magistrates' courts are able to impose, thereby possibly avoiding the necessity of some of the defendants in the magistrates' courts having to go to Crown Courts for sentence?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, changes in the criminal law are essentially matters for the Home Office. I do not therefore think that I can give a ready-made reply. Personally I think that a great step forward has been taken in bringing into effect Section 48 of the Criminal Justice Act which, as the noble and learned Lord on the Opposition Front Bench will know, was something for which I campaigned when I was in Opposition. That will enable potential defendants at least to know what the prosecution case is. I am satisfied that quite a substantial number of 402 them go for trial by jury not because they hope to get off, but because they want to get rational advice as to whether or not to plead guilty, and no responsible counsel can give that advice until he knows what the case is.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord agree that while improvements have been made, a great deal still needs to be done, particularly in regard to remands and the holding of people in prison on remand for months and months? Many of them may well be acquitted when tried and many will not be sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Will attention be paid to the disturbing phenomenon that the number of remand prisoners is increasing?

§ The Lord Chancellor
Well, of course, my Lords, the number of remand prisoners will increase with the number of committals, though they will not be identical, as the majority of prisoners are on bail. But as the number of charges rises, so the actual arithmetical number of remands will rise. The Bail Act, passed through this House by the noble and learned Lord, puts into effect what I had always advocated—that the presumption is in favour of bail. In the remaining cases there is legitimate anxiety on the part of the public that offences may continue to be committed if there is a long period between committal and arraignment when prisoners are on bail. Therefore, there is a limit to what can reasonably be done in that respect.
My own belief is that we should look again—I am now talking outside my own department—at the kind of question that the James Committee was considering. The noble and learned Lord will remember that we had some interesting exchanges on that subject when our roles were reversed. My own view is that a great number of cases now triable in the Crown Court, or tried in the Crown Court, could perfectly well be dealt with on summary trial by the magistrates. This would automatically reduce the number of remands. But the factor that must concern me most is, of course, the period of delay between committal and arraignment. These very long remands are by any standards wholly unacceptable. What one wants is to get the case for trial. Then there will not be these long periods of remand.

§ Lord Wigoder
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will no doubt accept that what he has said about the possible limitation of jury trials is a matter of the greatest controversy and not one perhaps that can be usefully explored at Question Time.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord that it cannot usefully be explored at Question Time, because it is a matter for debate. But a lot of the controversy, I believe, is unnecessary and due to a misunderstanding of what is really at issue. The question really is: are cases properly categorised? The noble and learned Lord on the Labour Front Bench and his Home Secretary did in fact carry out a very great part of what the James Committee recommended. I think that he would have gone further if the degree of controversy then engendered had not been so intense. Both of us, I think, agreed about that. However, I had to tell him that what was then 403 proposed was unlikely to get through one House or the other. I still think that a great number of changes could be made to the advantage of all concerned.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may well remember the great indignation of Lord Moms of Borth-y-Gest at the suggestion that small thefts should no longer enjoy the privilege of jury trial when he quoted: Who steals my purse, steals trash". When I pointed out that this was said by the villain Iago and not by the virtuous Othello, it cut no ice at all.

§ The Lord Chancellor
Yes, my Lords, the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right about this. If one was asked—asking, if necessary, oneself—whether one's reputation would be worse damaged by cruelty to an animal or neglect of a child which are triable summarily only, or by stealing a book from a railway bookstall, I think that one would give a very ready answer. But the first two are triable summarily and stealing the book is triable either way. I think that we really have to be a little rational. Although I well remember the eloquence of my dear old noble and learned friend—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, took part in the controversy (unless I am mistaken)—I think that some lawyers stick to their old nonsenses like the mediaeval priest.

§ Baroness Macleod of Borve
My Lords, can my noble and learned friend tell us the number of Crown Courts built since 1980? Perhaps he can confirm that there were 339 in 1980 and there are now 386. Surely that will minimise, one would hope, the delay in cases coming to trial at the Crown Court.

§ The Lord Chancellor
Yes, my Lords; my noble friend is quite right. I cannot give the exact figures but I think that she is about right. The provision of court accommodation was at first—that is to say, about 1970 when I first came into this—one of the critical limiting factors on the disposal of Crown Court cases. There is still in force a very wide building programme. If she were to put down a Written Question I could give her further details. The number of judges is also a limiting factor. I said last year to the Select Committee of another place that I was trying to increase the number of full-time circuit judges in post. I think that they are now running at about 374, which is a very satisfactory increase. But one must keep the quality up. One cannot afford second-rate justice in the Crown Court or anywhere else.