On the order for the second reading of the Criminal
Appeal Bill in the Lords on Monday, the Lord Chancellor explained the points on which the Bill differed from that of last year— viz., the restriction of the Court to nine judges ; the additional provision by which appeal was given without leave in all capital cases; and the enabling of the Court to order a new trial. Lord Halsbury, while not prepared to move the rejec- tion of the Bill, took strong exception to some of its features. In particular he held that it impaired the institution of the jury, which the Constitution had made the tribunal on fact. In his view the judgment of a jury was better on a question of fact than that of the learned judges, who were at times a little dis- posed to be too technical. He condemned the unqualified right of appeal in capital cases as likely to increase the burden of arrears, and could not bring himself to believe that by estab- lishing this Court they would get rid of trial by newspaper. The Lord Chancellor, in replying, dwelt on the fact that we were unique among nations in giving no right of appeal in criminal cases, scouted the notion that we could not afford to pay for extra judges, and demurred to the view that the sense of responsibility among jurymen would be impaired. The Bill was then read a second time. During the passage of the Bill through Committee on Thursday, Lord Halsbury, sup- ported by Lord Alverstone and Lord Collins, moved an im- portant amendment, making all appeals dependent on the permission of the judge who tried the case. The amendment was strongly opposed by the Lord Chancellor, who hinted that it might have a most serious effect on the Bill, but was carried by 54 to 32 votes.
Previous page
