SIR,—May I as a layman request the courtesy of your
columns to expose a serious weakness in the law and practice of magistrates' courts? Last year, after a clear record of some thirty-five years, I was involved in a motor accident which might have had very serious consequences. As there was an indepen- dent witness available, the police offered to prosecute the other party for dangerous driving, which is of course a serious offence. If they had not done so I should myself have prosecuted.
The case was due for hearing before a stipendiary magistrate and I duly reported on time having in order to do so to curtail my holiday abroad. The accused turned up two hours late and the witness not at all. The police officer who should have been in charge of the case was not available and another officer, with apparently little experience, was taking it.
Eventually the magistrate, who was getting im- patient, insisted on taking the case although neither the witness nor the prosecutor could be found. The latter arrived in court during the progress of the case but never questioned either myself or the accused or addressed the court. As very naturally there was a conflict of evidence the case was dis- missed.
Now, there are several unsatisfactory features about this case. The warning to appear was issued -to all concerned about three months in advance, Surely a second warning shortly before the case came on should have been issued, especially to witnesses who are not likely to keep a diary. There is also no , penalty for an accused or witness who does not choose to turn up or is several hours late. No application for adjournment was made nor, in the absence of the prosecution, could be made when the case came on, though perhaps the clerk who had the depositions in front of him might have suggested it. Finally, there was no barrister or solicitor employed by the prosecution, which was in the hands of an obviously inexperienced police officer.
A full report, the accuracy of which has never been questioned, was sent to the Clerk to the Magis- trate and in due course to the Commissioner of Police, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Home Office, the Ministry of Transport and the Lord Chancellor. The Clerk to the Magistrate did not even acknowledge receipt. The Commissioner of Police expressed his regret but would not admit that there was anything wrong with the procedure adopted. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate said he had no authority to control in any way the ex- ercise by his brother magistrates of their judicial functions. The Home Office did not consider any action was required, The Ministry of Transport said they had no responsibility in these questions of prosecution and the legal procedure involved. The Lord Chancellor said that except when acting in his judicial capacity he could not comment on the manner in which a magistrate has conducted any particular case.
We are therefore left with the position that the police prefer to waste the time of their senior police officers, of whom there are obviously far too few,
in prosecuting in motoring cases instead of employ- ing a solicitor or barrister. It also seems that each police station or section provides an expert police officer to conduct its own cases whereas one pro- fessional man could conduct all the motoring cases in each court and thus save manpower besides doing the work more efficiently.
The police who con-suet these cases seem to take little or no part, e.g. by cross-examining witnesses, etc., and are not allowed to address the court. The time of magistrates, the police and witnesses is wasted by there being no efficient system for en- suring the attendance at the correct time of the accused and witnesses, and no penalty if they come some hours late or don't come at all. It is not of course normal practice to issue a subpcena.
Finally there appears to be no authority who has power to criticise any magistrate for his con- duct of a case, such as proceeding with it in the absence of the prosecution and essential witnesses
I enclose for your information the correspondence referred to but I feel that I should sign myself
London, WI
FRUSTRATED
Previous page
