Governor's arguments.
4.
On the other hand, by insisting that there should be no
On restriction of attendance when sentence was announced, we open
the door to the same possibility of disturbance in the court at
that stage.
In our various communications we have not, and do not in the present draft, address ourselves to the Governor's argument that if mobs are always to be admitted when sentence is passed,
trouble may, on occasions arise as readily from this as it would from their admission during a trial." This seems to me self-
evident.
5. The arguments we have put up are·
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
The exclusion of the public from the courts when
sentence is announced is unprecedented in the
British system of law,"Fiat justitia, ruat judex" is a fine principle but justice will suffer if a judge or magistrate is frustrated in the discharge of his functions by mob violence at any stage of the proceedings
if the verdict is announced in public, any
suggestion of secret trials will be reported refured.
But if such suggestions are made, they will be
directed to the conduct of the trial itself not
the verdict. It is the course of proceedings
not the verdict which constitutes the fairness of
the trial. Anyway, as the Governor says, the Press
are present.
>
that the relatives and friends of the accused
should know and see what happens to him. This
argument was not put to the Governor in our first
comments on the Ordnance and if this is what was
meant by phrases like "unprecedented in the British system of law" it is a pity it was not made clearer
pre-suppores at the outset. But the comment suggests a readiness on the part of the relatives and friends of the accused to attend the court, and I should expect the Governor to comment that this could be done, as far
/as
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.