THE JUDGES' PROPOSALS.
THE recommendations for legal reform made by the Council of Judges, after four months' close investi- gation of the subject, constitute one of the most important schemes for improving the judicial Administration ever made. It is often said that the Judges are too fond of their leisure, and that they are unwilling to undertake the least particle of extra work. Let those who are of this opinion study the resolutions of the Council of Judges which accom- pany the Report presented by them to the Home Secretary. study the resolutions of the Council of Judges which accom- pany the Report presented by them to the Home Secretary. The labours of the Committee which drafted the resolu- tions must have been of the heaviest, and the eminent lawyers who undertook this duty, purely voluntarily, and without any of the inducements which usually accompany special work, deserve the heartiest thanks of the public. If a Royal Commission had been appointed to consider the subject, we should have had to wait a couple of years at the very least. As it is, we have a detailed scheme,—a scheme capable of being put into im- mediate operation,—presented us only some four months after it was seriously taken up. No one can accuse the Council of Judges either of a want of thoroughness in their recommendations, or of delay in their deliberations. They have answered the appeal of the public for a reform of our legal system both quickly and exhaustively. The first point dealt with by the Council is the Circuit system. Of late years the Circuit system has been re- cognised as the chief cause of the waste of judicial time. Judges have been sent to obscure country towns, with all the pomp and circumstance of judicial state, ready to try cases as important as were ever heard in Westminster Hall, but have found nothing to engage their attention but one or two trumpery and insignificant actions. We have, that is, with great labour and waste of time, transported a steam-hammer to a distant part of the country, and when we have got it there, we have used it to crack a nut. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that the cry has arisen, "Let the nut come to the steam-hammer, instead of the steam-hammer to the nut," and that it has seriously been proposed, as far as civil business is concerned, to abolish the Circuit system altogether. The Council of Judges have wisely, as we think, decided not to go so far as this. For many purposes, the Circuit system answers admirably. In places where there is plenty of heavy material to be crushed, it is by no means uneconomical of time and labour to take the steam-hammer down to the material. The proper reform is to send it where it is really wanted, but never where it is not wanted. Accordingly, what the Council proposes is this. At pre- sent there are fifty-six circuit towns. These they will leave for criminal business. For civil cause purposes they, however, select eighteen centres, and to these centres Judges of nisi-pritts actions will go, as they now go, to the fifty-six county towns. This will very much facilitate matters. The civil business of towns within a convenient distance of London will go to the Metropolis, and, of the other towns deprived of civil circuits, to the nearest of the eighteen centres. The improvement is even greater than it seems. It will be possible at the eighteen centres to have a daily cause-list, and therefore litigants and their witnesses will not have to be kept waiting, but will be able to know the exact day on which they will be wanted. The towns which it is proposed shall become the circuit centres for civil business are :— Norwich, Lincoln, and Bodmin, however, though included in the list, will not, owing to their peculiar geographical position, have any other towns grouped with them. We presume that there must be good reasons for this arrange- ment; but it is difficult to see why Bodmin, at any rate, should not be grouped with Exeter. It is further to be noted that the Judges recommend that "power shall be taken to order under special circum- stances a cause to be tried at any town to which a criminal Judge only proceeds." Such are the arrange- ments proposed as to the Circuit system—arrange- ments which it is calculated will always allow eight Judges to be present in London, and so get rid of the paralysis which now falls upon the Queen's Bench Division during Circuit. That the proposal is a wise one we cannot doubt, and that it will meet with opposition, except from the tradesmen of county towns like Oakham, Mold, Presteign, Appleby, Ruthin, Dolgelly, Huntingdon, and Haverford- west, we do not believe. A certain small number of suitors may have to travel a few more miles than now to "'Sizes." That is the total of the inconvenience that will be caused by the change. On the other hand, the reform of the Circuit system will save a considerable amount of judicial power, and so enable more work to be got through than at present.
The changes proposed in regard to the procedure of the Queen's Bench Division, though they will be less easily recognised by the public as beneficial, are, we believe, even more important. The chief evil at the present moment is the multiplicity of interlocutory applications and appeals. The raising of these side problems prevents the real action from coming to trial, and gives an unscrupulous litigant great opportunities for retarding the progress of a suit. The Judges propose to sweep these away by making compul- sory the taking out, a fortnight after the issue of the writ, of that Summons for Directions which has hitherto been optionaL Put in plain language, what will happen is this. A fortnight after the writ has been issued, or earlier, the plaintiff and defendant will appear before the Master, and he, having heard the cause of action, will settle all the preliminaries of the trial. He is to have power to direct as to the mode and place of trial, and will be able to put a case into a special list, in order that it may be tried forthwith. He will also be able to allow or disallow pleadings, and will be able to direct in regard to all other matters of procedure, and to say what particular form of evidence will be required in regard to this or that fact, and whether it "should be given by affidavit of information and belief, or by pro- duction of documents or copies of documents, or by entries in books." As to the mode and place of trial, the Judges recommend :— " The mode of trial in the Queen's Bench Division shall be by a Judge without a jury, or by a Judge with a jury, or by a Judge with assessors; the mode to be determined on the summons for directions, provided always that in the following cases the right of either party to a trial by jury shall be absolute :—Libel, slander, seduction, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, breach of promise of marriage. The place of trial shall be at such town (where actions are tried) as shall be the least expen- sive and most convenient, subject to any statutes fixing the place of triaL" The much-talked-of Commercial Court is another recom- mendation made by the Judges. There is to be a special commercial list, on which only commercial cases will be put, and to try the causes on this list two Judges are to be assigned. For this Court a general jury panel is to be formed "of persons conversant with commercial
Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Glamorgan, Bristol, Newcastle, Durham, Chester, Exeter, York, Carlisle, Nottingham, Norwich, Winchester, Lincoln, Carnarvon Bodmin.
matters." Whether this new Court will be able to attract back to the Queen's Bench Division the business which now goes to the Arbitrators appointed by various Trade Associations remains to be seen, but, at any rate, the experiment is worth trying. If men of good commercial standing serve on the Juries, and if cases can be tried as promptly as if they are before an arbitrator, we do not see why the Court should not become popular. In regard to appeals alone, the recommendations seem to us not quite satisfactory. The recommendations as to interlocutory appeals are sound enough ; but we wish the Judges could have found it possible to recom- mend the abolition of Divisional Courts, and the assimi- lation of the Queen's Bench Division system to that of the Chancery Division. What they propose is to make a new Appeal Court for interlocutory appeals in the Queen's Bench Division. That, we take it, is what is meant by a Divisional Court "consisting of not less than three Judges, and such Court to be as permanent as possible." This means that three Judges in London who will be wanted to be judging in Courts of first instance, will be hearing appeals. It would be far better to con- stitute another Court in the Court of Appeal by adding one more Lord Justice. This extra Lord Justice, the Lord Chief Justice, and the President of the Probate and Divorce Division could, when needed, constitute an extra Court of Appeal. When this Court was not wanted, the Junior Lord Justice could sit as the extra Chancery Judge. Finally, the Judges declare as follows in favour of a Court of Appeal in criminal cases :— "A permanent Court of Criminal Appeal shall be formed of seven members, of whom five shall be a quorum. Such Court shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of England for the time being, and six other Judges of the Queen's Bench Division. to be selected by the Judges of that Division. The jurisdiction of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved shall be transferred to the said Court. Such Court of Appeal shall have power to revise the sentence of any person convicted of any criminal offence (except murder) by any Recorder or by magistrates at quarter sessions, or by any Judge of the Supreme Court on the application of the person convicted, or of the Attorney-General, and to confirm or to
increase or diminish his sentence Where a complaint is made at any time to the Home Secretary with regard to any conviction or sentence, the Court at his request may consider such complaint, and such further evidence as he may direct to be laid before them, and also such documents as the Court shall require or permit to be given, and shall have power to quash the conviction or diminish the sentence respectively. The Court shall not in any case have power to direct a new trial."
The recommendations sound reasonable, but we should like to see them thoroughly discussed. It is to be noted, however, that they are not in favour of a retrial of criminal cases, but only of a revision of sentences. By such means, we shall avoid the scandals of an inadequate punishment in one case, and of an excessive punishment in another. The plan by which the Home Secretary will refer cases to the Court for their advice is, prima facie, reasonable. As we have said, however, the whole matter requires more discussion.
Previous page
