| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the second matter, yesterday I intimated a decision on the point with the concurrence of the designated judges; that is, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor. Without going into detail, it would be fair to say that we agreed the application of the Law Society in part, with considerable conditions attached. The principle condition is that in substantial hearings the employed solicitor could not be the sole or leading advocate.
As regards the James Committee Report, my noble and learned friend will find that in the review by Mr. Narey the James Committee Report is dealt with and referred to in detail. Therefore, the report deals with the matter and indicates the situation in which the James Report was given. Of course, the Royal Commission, which also considered the issue most carefully, had full regard to the detailed work of the committee chaired by Lord Justice James. However, as my noble and learned friend said, that was some considerable time ago and there have been a number of changes in the criminal justice system since then.
There has been a good deal of support for reclassification of some offences, but it has always been difficult to see how that can be done. For example, my noble and learned friend Lord Lane forcefully supported an amendment to take petty theft out of the either-way category on the very day that I was invited to become the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, it is engraved on my memory by that particular coincidence. That issue has been raised a number of times and has been found difficult. It has the disadvantage that everyone knows is attached to such an offence. If you make it summary you will not land in the Crown Court, whereas if the judgment is with the magistrates and they consider that the case is sufficiently serious, it could arrive in the Crown Court if the proposal made by Mr. Narey were accepted. Those disadvantages must be considered, but I agree that this is a most important matter and it is right that it should be carefully considered. This is the opportunity to do that and I hope to do so without any cynicism whatever.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a very short question in the context of the appeal to which the noble and learned Lord referred as
regards the right to elect being removed in favour of the decision to be taken. In circumstances in which identity or the rectitude of a confession or the conduct of the police or Crown witnesses is in issue and is in some way to be challenged, it would be, would it not, assuredly wrong to deprive the subject of a right to trial by jury?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, one cannot enumerate all the circumstances one way or the other. That is why it seems reasonable to consider the proposal that it should be decided by a judicial tribunal; namely, the magistrates who are charged with deciding guilt or innocence in a very high proportion of the total number of cases decided in England and Wales.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. He will have listened many times to the case developed in this House by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and most particularly developed by the late Lord Rippon of Hexham in his Hansard Society report Making the Law, against bringing forward too much legislation. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House how many Bills within the area of the Home Office's departmental responsibilities are at present before Parliament? Should we come back and find another major Bill from the Home Office before us, is he aware that there is a risk that someone may say that its rash, fierce blaze of riot cannot last?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think, technically, I made the Statement as well as the Home Secretary. As regards the situation of legislation, there are certainly a number of Home Office Bills presently before both Houses of Parliament. Quite a lot of people think that, for example, the Offences Against the Person Bill, which the Law Commission prepared some time ago, would be extremely suitable for legislation.
The Lord Chancellor: I think I pick up some assent to that. The mere fact that there are a number of Bills before Parliament does not mean that it would not be wise to have any more such Bills. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would agree that it is right that we should do everything we can to promote as efficient and rapid a system of justice as possible. This review makes proposals and, subject to whatever views emerge, it may be necessary to take legislative action. Surely that is a wise way in which to act. The decision whether or not to promote legislation must be taken in the light of all the circumstances and is certainly not to be taken at this moment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I am sure rightly, pointed out the implications as regards the changes in the way that it is decided whether a case should be tried in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. He said that that would mean an increase in the number of cases tried in the magistrates'
court. That is a matter of interest to lay people. What effect will that have on the workload of solicitors and barristers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, judging from the reaction which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, found in Birmingham on Friday, it looks as though perhaps the barristers would welcome more work. I am not sure. I am not in the business of creating that work but where the work exists, I am in favour of it being done economically and efficiently.
The primary problem in the magistrates' courts is bringing cases to trial. It is not that the trials take a long time. That is where I differ quite fundamentally on a proposal in the youth justice paper to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred. Once a case comes to trial, it is disposed of extremely expeditiously. In the magistrates' courts the difficulty is the number of adjournments before a case is ready for trial. When speaking to magistrates from time to time, as I have pleasure in doing, they tell me that many cases are adjourned and there is not enough work to do. That is a real and serious problem.
The report makes proposals to deal with that. If those proposals work, then the scope for bringing more cases to trial would thereby be increased. Obviously, the review believes that the magistrates' courts could well accommodate such cases. As was pointed out, a high proportion of those cases are resolved ultimately by pleas of guilty and such pleas of guilty might come earlier if it were not for the remit to the Crown Court.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware of the widespread disappointment expressed today within the government legal services and the Crown Prosecution Service about the restrictions on rights of audience that are implicit in the Statement which he made? Is the noble and learned Lord able to tell the House how much taxpayers' money is spent each year in instructing barristers from private practice?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, obviously the amount spent is important but the question is whether the interests of justice are served in the circumstances. As my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner mentioned, the committee set up by statute to advise me on those matters considered that issue and came down by a majority of one against the grant of any right of audience on these matters in the higher courts to employed solicitors beyond what they have at present. That was based on the view that their relationship of employment had an effect prejudicial to justice.
Having considered those matters with my colleagues--the designated judges--we took the view that the problem could be dealt with in the way that we have proposed. That is quite a considerable enlargement of the rights of audience of employed solicitors in the Crown Prosecution Service. A way has been found to avoid the possibility of the kind of damage to justice which has been suggested. Obviously, such matters do not stand still completely. As my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said, we have
not rushed the matter. I have discussed it very fully with the designated judges. We thought that that was the best balance, and I believe that it is a good decision.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that some of us are rather concerned about the use of the term "petty crime"? A woman charged with shoplifting, who has a blameless reputation, does not regard the charge against her as a petty matter. Many of us would fight very rigorously any possible deprivation of the right to a jury trial for such a person.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I feel certain that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would have confidence that the magistrates share the values he has expressed. A number of magistrates do so expressly on their declarations on becoming magistrates when we try to preserve a balance in those matters on appointment. Surely, if people are trusted to decide the issue of guilt or innocence, they should be able to decide whether or not a particular case is one in which the right to go to the Crown Court should be affirmed.
Contract (Scotland) Bill
4.19 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page