| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham): My right hon. and learned Friend is right to stress that two thirds of defendants in the either-way cases that go to jury trial end up pleading guilty. That must impose enormous costs on the courts, but more worrying is the delay that it causes for more serious cases that are properly tried by a jury. Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to speculate
on how much of a saving could be made in terms of the current delays in serious trials, which worry so many of us?
Mr. Howard: The reviewer in the report reaches what he regards as the reasonably conservative conclusion that the savings that would result from his proposals overall might amount to something in the region of £110 million a year, of which £70 million would come from the specific proposal relating to the Crown courts. Let me emphasise, however, that those savings--welcome though they would be--are not the prime motive behind the proposals. We want to deal with the delays, with the dreadful inconvenience caused to those who have to go to court and with the extremely damaging effect on justice that is a consequence of those delays. That is the motivation behind the proposals.
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery): I, too, am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to see the review earlier today. It contains a number of worthwhile proposals, which we shall certainly consider, and which will speed up the criminal justice system.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recognise, however, that one part of the review is extremely badly flawed? I refer to the Soviet-style rewriting of history in the section that deals with the right to elect jury trial. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, ever since defendants were first given the right to give evidence on their own behalf in trials, they have had the right to elect trial by jury? Does he not recognise that that is a fundamental freedom, which is not to be done away with in the cause of saving money?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman further recognise that, if the proposals on the abolition of the right to elect jury trial were brought into effect, there would be a considerable increase in delays in magistrates courts, unless the Government were to take the view that a large additional number of stipendiary magistrates were to be appointed? Further, does he not recall that when the Crown Prosecution Service was established by the right hon. and learned Member for Tunbridge Wells(Sir P. Mayhew), the independence of the CPS was the benchmark behind its establishment? Does he not agree that the arm's length independence of the CPS remains very important; that while it is, of course, appropriate for police forces to have lawyers in police stations, those lawyers should not be part of the independent CPS, but should be employed by police forces--as is the case in many forces now--and advise those police forces?
Mr. Howard:
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the qualified welcome that he gave to some of the proposals in the report. I do not think that his strictures on the perfectly accurate way in which the report deals with the history of jury trial were at all justified. I believe, as I said at the outset, that the proposal merits very careful consideration, and it has merit in it. I made it plain, immediately before he got to his feet, that we were not putting forward that or any other proposal in the package on financial grounds. I do not say that the savings will not be welcome, but that is not the reason why the proposals were made. They were put forward to speed up the system of justice that we have in this country, and to do away with the delays that disfigure it at the moment. That is extremely important.
As to the hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, I cannot see any justification whatever for erecting a whole new battery of lawyers in the system--lawyers employed by the police. I entirely agree with him and yield to no one in my recognition of the importance of the independence of the CPS. I believe that it has been a valuable addition to our system since it was set up in the early 1980s, but I do not believe, as I said in my statement, that independence need mean isolation. I do not think that that independence will be at all imperilled by the collocation of the CPS and the police in some police stations.
Mr. David Ashby (North-West Leicestershire):
My right hon. and learned Friend will, perhaps, be aware that I do not agree with him that the right to trial by one's fellow men should be taken away in cases where dishonesty is involved. It is an ancient and well-tried right. One cannot be satisfied by the fact that we are told that two thirds plead guilty. What about the one third who plead not guilty? The whole concept of justice goes with that.
I am very worried that if we go down the road that the report advocates, many trials will have to be heard in the magistrates courts, and one of the problems with magistrates courts is that trials are often disrupted. Magistrates will hear one part one day, another part in a fortnight's time, and another a month after that. That cannot be justice in any sense of the word, but that is what happens. Is there anything in my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals to rectify that problem?
Mr. Howard:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's criticism of the way in which some trials are conducted in magistrates courts and the delays that result from that. I believe that the proposals will go a considerable way towards improving that. The combination of early administrative hearings and pre-trial reviews will enable the justices' clerk to form a view before the case ever reaches the magistrates, for example, that it is a case that is likely to take three or four days to try. The clerk will then be in a position to make available justices for that period, so that the case will be heard in one go, as it should be, and not in the way that my hon. Friend identified, which happens far too frequently at present.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's criticism on that, and hope that some of the proposals will go a long way towards meeting it.
Mr. John Fraser (Norwood):
As someone who acts as a duty solicitor, may I give the Home Secretary two pieces of advice? First, we should be selective, because having a pre-trial review in every case adds to expense, cost and time. Secondly, although it sounds attractive for people to appear in court the day after charge, it presents the police with considerable logistical problems. For example, the policeman may have been on duty all night. If the defendant is not in custody, it is not necessary for him to appear the next day. There should be a close link between the criminal act and its consequences, which is Labour party policy. Many measures are introduced for headlines rather than for effect.
Mr. Howard:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first point, which we shall take on board. It is an
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
In the 10 years I have been in the House, I have seldom heard such good sense from a Minister in a statement. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said, I believe that we should never have abolished the practice of dealing with people in a magistrates court the day after they are charged, and that it should be reintroduced. It is not a problem for the police service: it certainly was not in my day. I believe that the police will welcome the proposal.
On either-way trials, if we can trust magistrates to decide guilt or innocence, why cannot we trust magistrates to decide whether cases are sufficiently serious to be tried by a jury in a Crown court?
Mr. Howard:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend: there is much in his second point. At the moment, a number of serious offences that would undoubtedly have a considerable effect on someone's reputation are triable only summarily. Assault on a police officer is not an offence that gives rise to a right to trial by jury. The consequences of such an assault could be extremely serious, yet it is a summary only offence. Many serious offences with serious consequences for defendants do not have an automatic right to jury trial. We should weigh that in the balance when we make a final decision on the proposal.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Given the delays in the criminal justice system, would the proposals be of any assistance to Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, who, for four years, have done their utmost to see to it that those who murdered their son Stephen are brought to justice? Is that not a glaring example of where the criminal justice system is not working? In those circumstances, is it not right for a newspaper to do what it can to ensure that those whom it believes are guilty of that terrible murder four years ago are brought to justice?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |