Courts: Deaf and Dumb Defendants (Hansard, 15 January 1986)

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)
My Lords, in the magistrates' courts, it is for the court to ensure that it can communicate adequately with deaf and dumb persons appearing before it. Where a deaf and dumb defendant does not himself arrange for the services of an interpreter, magistrates' courts make use of interpreters provided through the agency of local directors of social services and voluntary bodies such as the Royal National Institute for the Deaf.
In the crown court, interpreters must be provided by the parties.
Provided the court staff are given sufficient warning of the needs of a party or a witness who is so disabled, arrangements can generally be made to ensure that that person is able to sit as close as possible to, and with an unobstructed view of, the judge and the witness box.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for that full reply. Is it the clear intention that persons should be enabled to follow immediately proceedings on charges against them in a court if they are suffering from this kind of handicap? Is my noble and learned friend aware that if that is so, and if that is achieved, this would be achieving one of the aims of the International Year of Disabled People 1981, with which a number of Members of this House were closely involved?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am not absolutely sure that I fully understood my noble friend's question. It is of course absolutely vital that if a party or a witness is suffering from a disability the court should be made aware of it by whomsoever has the duty of seeing to such things. In the case of the crown courts, I should think it would be the legal aid representatives, solicitors and counsel representing the afflicted party or the party wishing to call the witness. This is absolutely vital. I had not considered this matter as involving our international obligations, but I shall certainly consider what my noble friend says. It is particularly unfortunate in some cases where the disability is such that the person afflicted is not able to plead. There was one particularly distressing case recently which my noble friend may have had in mind.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, is it not the case that, in practice, zealous care is taken to try to meet the situation and position of handicapped persons such as the deaf and dumb? That has been the practice in the courts certainly throughout my career at the Bar, and indeed before that. One got the impression that broadly speaking the arrangements were satisfactory. As to whether any of the new techniques in regard to assisting the deaf might be attempted in the courts if they prove effective, no doubt that could be done and there could be a trial process. But, generally speaking, is not the situation on the whole satisfactory as it now stands?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's question used the words "on the whole", and to that I think I can give an unqualified affirmative reply. But the appalling thing which actually happened in the case which I have in mind (and it happened in the course of the past few weeks) was that two questions arose on plea. The first was whether, to use the technical language, the defendant was mute of malice or mute of the visitation of God. That is the phrase. It was found that he was mute of the visitation of God.
The question then arose whether his disability was so severe as to render him unable, even with an interpreter, to understand the nature of the proceedings as they went along. The jury found that he was unfit to plead for that reason. The judge thereupon had no option but to send him to a hospital under the section of the Act, but there was no place available. It then followed that under a section of a separate Act he had no option but to send the poor fellow to prison, where he spent at least 24 hours. The judge remedied that as soon as he could. He incurred from the press and others a great deal of unjustified criticism, because he was simply obeying and applying the law. I think that the distress of the public and Members of Parliament was fully justified, and so did the judge. On the second occasion when the defendant appeared before him the judge described his situation as intolerable, and I think it was.
The first thing that happened when I had these letters coming in from another place was that I copied the correspondence to the Home Secretary, and I am sure that he will look into the matter. In this particular case, although I agree that the arrangements are usually satisfactory, this obviously went grievously wrong. The man was charged with a relatively trivial offence and he went to prison, which would never have happened if he had not been suffering from a grievous disability.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that I was of course conversant with that case, which had been brought to my notice, although I did not try to go into it in detail? Is he also aware that, as regards the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, sign language with an interpreter is normally quite adequate? However, it is of course essential that enough notice be given beforehand by legal advisers or helpers.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I absolutely agree that if the only disability from which the deaf and dumb person is suffering is being deaf and dumb, 1069 communication can be set up by means of an interpreter, with proper notice, and that is perfectly adequate for the conduct of a trial. However, if the effect of the disability is such that even with an interpreter the person concerned will be unable to understand the nature of the proceedings, then fitness to plead enters into the question. It was at that stage that things began to go wrong.