APPENDIX 10
Memorandum submitted by the Legal Committee
of District Judges (Magistrates' Courts) (CJSB 24)
Police power to impose conditions on a suspect's
bail before charge
3.36 We have no objection to this proposal.
Any such power must comply with Bail Act 1976, Schedule 1, Part
1, paragraph 8 "Restriction of conditions of bail" and
section 3(6).
Reform to the rules of evidence, including greater
disclosure of past criminal convictions
4.52-4.53 We agree that "the English
law of criminal evidence, should, in general, move away from technical
rules of inadmissibility to trusting judicial and lay fact-finders
to give relevant evidence the weight it deserves." (Auld
Review, page 547)
4.54 We are not in favour of greater disclosure
of past criminal convictions. There appears to be a lack of understanding
of the present law, in particular, the breadth of the "similar
fact" and "relevant background" exceptions to the
general exclusionary rule. There is a need for greater clarification
of what exactly the Government has in mind as alternatives to
the current situation.
Advance indication of sentence discounts for early
guilty pleas
4.41-4.44 We support these proposals for
the reasons set out at paragraph 4.41 subject to the safeguards
set out in the Auld Review recommendations at pages 443-444.
Extension of magistrates' sentencing powers from
six months to twelve months
4.19 In our response to the Auld Review
(dated 22 January 2002) we welcomed the proposed creation of an
intermediate tier. Our views remain unchanged. Extending the jurisdiction
of magistrates' courts to 12 months' imprisonment would lead to
the sort of difficulties referred to in our response at pages
20 to 24 "Part Four: The District Level." We also made
reference to this proposal in our response, dated 8 October 2002,
to "Justice for All" on page 1. Would magistrates' courts
be able to impose a total sentence of two years' imprisonment
(12 months for each of two offences, to run consecutively to each
other—Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 133)?
Removal of right to elect trial by jury in serious
and complex fraud trials
4.30 We do not object to this proposal.
Removal of restrictions on the jury being invited
to draw inferences from discrepancies between the pre-trial defence
statement and the defence case at trial
3.52 We do not object to this proposal.
Relaxation of the double jeopardy rule for serious
offences (including manslaughter, rape and robbery) where compelling
new evidence comes to light
4.63-4.66 We support the thrust of the
Law Commission's proposals for statutory reform and codification
of the law of double jeopardy and those set out in the White Paper.
The change should extend to very serious offences including rape,
manslaughter, robbery and other grave offences punishable with
life imprisonment.
Introduction of Custody Minus, Custody Plus and
Intermittent Custody schemes
5.24-5.36 Custody Minus: Will a breach
automatically lead to immediate imprisonment? Suspended
sentences of imprisonment, introduced by a Criminal Justice Act
1967, were often breached (84 per cent at one stage) and led to
a substantial growth in the prison population.
Custody Plus: We agree with paragraphs
5.22 and 5.23 and have no real objections to 5.24 to 5.29, although
we have some reservations as to how it will work out in practice.
Intermittent Custody: We do not object
to this proposal. We note that such sentences "could be served
in existing open prisons" (paragraph 5.34), which, on the
face of it seems, sensible. However, we have some concerns about
this, particularly bearing in mind that the Woolf Report stated:
"it is highly desirable for the stable running of a prison
and for the prospects of the prisoner leading a law abiding life
after release, that, whenever practicable, he should be accommodated
as near to his home and community as possible." This is particularly
important for those serving custodial sentences "at weekends
or during the week with the rest of their sentence spent in the
community" (paragraph 5.33). Travel to and from an open prison
may be considerable when one takes into account the number and
the geographical location of open prisons in England and Wales
(approximately nine male open prisons; four female open prisons;
two male open young offender institutions).
Introduction of indeterminate sentence for violent
and sexual offences, where the offender has been assessed as dangerous
5.39-5.44 We support the Government's proposals
to ensure that the public is properly protected from dangerous
and sexual offenders.
Reform of youth courts and juvenile sentences
4.34-4.40 We have already commented on this
in our earlier response, dated 8 October 2002, to "Justice
for All."
Reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
1974
6.32-6.33 We have previously submitted our
comments to the review and note the contents of "Breaking
the Cycle."
Proposed changes to the management/structure of
the court system and information technology
9.14-9.27 Management decisions need to be
taken locally but within a strong national framework of standards
and strategy direction. Staff from magistrates' courts and the
Court Service must be fully involved in the planning for any new
organisation. An improved service must be provided to all those
involved in or connected in any way with the justice system.
9.47-9.69 Making the best possible use of
information technology is fundamental if there is to be a new
modern workable system which provides fast, effective justice.
In the main, the proposals have our support.
November 2002
| 
