there was no need to renew them as there was no evidence that they were being ignored but, after Lord Devlin's concern about the problem was pressed on his attention, he eventually agreed to send a reminder to all Chief Constables.
Criminal Law Bill
In so far as this Bill implements the procedural recommendations of the James Report we can give it a warm welcome. Its passage through the Lords, however, illustrates the lack of awareness of informed legal opinion on the part of Home Office advisers, and the value of constructive criticism.
Thus the Bill proposed to implement the recommendation of the James Committee that persons accused of thefts of the value of less than £20 should no longer have the right to trial by jury and set out an elaborate procedure for determining where such cases should be tried. This proposal had been rejected by all the bodies representing practising lawyers, including JUSTICE, and when this opposition was voiced it was gracefully withdrawn.
On the other hand the James Report had recommended that in all cases capable of being tried on indictment, the prosecution should provide the defence with witness statements in advance of the hearing in the magistrates' courts, and that there should be a greater disclosure of the prosecution case to the defence in advance in summary trials. These proposals, which had been urged and supported by JUSTICE and others as the best means of reducing the number of jury trials and of inducing guilty pleas, were not included in the Bill but under pressure the Govern- ment has introduced a clause providing for disclosure in offences triable either way and has undertaken to extend this to offences triable summarily.
We greatly regret that it has not yet been thought fit to provide a statutory requirement that in all indictable cases the prosecution should make available to the defence all statements taken from witnesses whom it does not propose to call, which we recommended as long ago as 1966, and have asked for ever since.
Criminal Appeals and Home Office Reviews
Our committee considering this problem has not yet reached its final conclusions. It is fairly certain to recommend a general power to order a retrial, as against the limited power to order a new trial on new evidence, but the problem of finding an effective and generally acceptable way of dealing with cases where new evidence is brought to light after an appeal has been dismissed is far more difficult to solve. In particular, it involves the evaluation of evidence which may not be strictly admissible in appeal proceedings, a reversal of the burden of proof, and a possible conflict between the executive and the judiciary. The present thoughts of the committee were voiced and discussed at this year's Annual Members' Conference of which a transcript is now available.
14
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.