A NEGLECTED REFORM.
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] -
SIR,—Permit me to call your attention to what seems to be an. oversight in the very sensible article in the Spectator recently on reform of the criminal law. It seems absurd to suppose that if Public Prosecutors are to be created in England, their functions will be very different or much more limited than those of similar- officials in Scotland, where the system has existed and worked well for many generations. In the article in question a fear is expressed lest they should have nothing to do but to take up the prosecution of persons already committed for trial, I have not read Mr. Elliot's book, but I have no doubt he explains• that in Scotland the Public Prosecutor has the whole management and "getting- up " of the case, from the very first complaint by the injured party. It is by him that the accused is brought before the sheriff or other magistrate, and it is he only who can ask for a war- rant to commit either for trial or for further investigation. Even the warrant to apprehend the accused is granted at his
instance only, the police being entirely subordinate. Each -county has one or more public prosecutors (Procurators-Fiscal), supposed to be the most respectable solicitors of the district. These act under the advice and direction, in some cases, of the Sheriff, and in others, of the Lord Advocate and other Crown counsel. There is no such thing known practically in Scotland as a criminal prosecution at the instance of a private party. It is not incompetent, but it never takes place, and cannot be done without the concurrence of the Public Prosecutor. In reference to the complaint that summary convictions are increasing in Eng- land, I may add that North of the Tweed no Judge can inflict more than sixty days' imprisonment without the aid of a jury. I need not say that coroners' inquests and the farce of grand juries are unknown there. It may be a question whether the public investigation with the view of committing for trial is not better than the private inquiry which is the Scotch practice. The late Lord Advocate Young had a leaning to the English system in this particular, but there is much to be said on both sides.—I am, [It was not an oversight " to omit what it was quite unneces- sary to state. What " seems " to our correspondent "absurd," is substantially the recommendation of the Committee of 1874 on the subject, and the purport of the Bill of 1872. The facts men- tioned by our correspondent and many others are fully stated in Mr. Elliot's pamphlet. —En. Spectator.]
Previous page
