JUDICIAL BARBARISM
SIR,—The Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, after holding sixty-three meetings and hearing 118 Witnesses, most of whom were doctors or judges and other lawyers, recom- mend with only one dissentient that 'The test of responsibility laid down in England by the McNaghten Rules is so defective that the law on the subject ought to be changed.' After seventeen months the Government has an- nounced its 'provisionqr ,,snrlusion that no
action should be taken on the recommendation.
This is in marked contrast to the position in other countries in which the McNaghten Rules arc applied, e.g. in Durham v. The United States, July• 1, 1954, in which the Court referred to the Royal Commission's rel•. J-t as 'convincing evidence that the "right and wrong" test of the McNaghten Rules is based upon an entirely obsolete and mislead- ing conception of the nature of insanity.'
Ought distinguished and busy men and women to be asked to devote so much time to the work of Commissions and Committees of this nature if no action whatever is to follow on their recommendations?—Yours faithfully,
GERALD GARDINER
12 King's Bench Walk, Temple, E.C.4
Previous page
