- 2
of the court by means of general orders or orders covering more than one court and would leave on the shoulders of the police a greater responsibility for preventing the court buildings and their precincts from becoming the focal point of incipient riots; a danger which frequently occurred in 1967.
It might also involve conferring on the lower courts the same powers as are now enjoyed at common law by the higher courts for this purpose, although this may be unnecessary in view of such cases as Norman v. Mathews (32 T.L.R. 369) and that of Doyle where Viscount Reading, delivering what was in effect the judgment of a very strong divisional court, said:-
"it is in my judgment plain that inherent jurisdiction exists in any Court which enables it to exclude the public where it becomes necessary in order to administer justice."
This would seem to be commonsense where a court is faced with the dilemma that it must either stop work because of riotous or threatening behaviour making its work impossible, or exclude the public and get on with its work. Whether this inherent jurisdiction would provide sufficient authority for the protection of the witness fearful of triad pressure etc. may be open to question but it might be possible to combine statutory provisions for this with the delivery of decisions in open court.
the
As I imagine you know, Morton has been in touch with Soveron about this matter. The feeling here is that the best way now to deal with it would be for Roberts to see you and discuss it with you when he is in London early in August.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.