A Scots Lawyer Looks At The Soviet System

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29222, 4 June 1960, Page 3

A Scots Lawyer Looks At The Soviet System

[Reviewed by

H.R.G.]

Russians at Law. By Lionel Daiches. Michael Joseph.

In early 1958 the author, a Scottish barrister, went for a fortnight to the Soviet Union as a member of a group of profeslional men and women to look at the legal system there. The general object of his inquiry (though this book gives little in the way of explicit findings) was to ascertain how far, if at all, the Soviet legal system operated to give ordinary citizens a fair and impartial trial, whether to any extent the courts of law gave any sort of protection against government tyranny and how far, if at all an accused person could defend himself in a court of law against a criminal charge. In particular, he was anxious to find how the Communist regime, which he associated with political intolerance and apparent contempt for the sanctity of individual rights, could be reconciled with what a person accustomed to the British legal systems regarded as essential. The group of fellow travellers (the term is used in its literal *ense) included university teachers. a former Lord Mayor of Cardiff, a medical officer of health, a business woman and the Lord Rector of Edinburgh University —the ebullient Dr. James Robertson Justice. Each had his or her own particular interest to pursue, and wherever they went, from Leningrad to the Black Sea. their wishes in this respect were more or less reasonably met. Naturally, since this is the lawyer’s account, this book contains impressions of this excurSlon as seen from a lawyer’s Point of view. But the book is °y no means narrowly technical; P fact, it is a pleasantly written hut unexceptional travelogue of the kind that Mr H. V. Morton hiaoe popular 30 years ago. Little “omitted, and the reader is taken systematically through deoptions of the cabins of the Baltika.” the receotions given to delegation (with accompanying speeches and statistics), the diversities. the Kremlin and the jst- Indeed, until nearly the end * the book, the title “Russians " ~L‘ aw '' is a misnomer: the Uuior actually saw very little of awyers and the courts of law ™til it was nearly time for him t 0 leave Russia. But what he does have to say “hut the judicial system (15 Wes in the text proper, together rJ ~ eight pages of “supplement” n “Civil Litigation” and “Crime Punishment"—no reason is for isolating the really ffnmaterial from the text) tn considerable interest both foe lawyer and to the social lentist. The lowest courts (the Snunterpart of New Zealand’s * agistrate’s Courts) are presided er by an elected judge and two jsessors. Appeals from these are heard by the City o° r ts; these courts are presided er by three judges, all of whom e elected by the local Soviet 01I , r - need not be legally ■ although many are. f, j ? so far as the author eard them, were largely on quesns of adequacy of evidence; u,, erence was ma de to the codes, «t no authority was offered for - Particular interpretation, nor

was there any reference to previously reported cases. It would appear from this narrative that most cases are treated as cases of first impression and that a very free discretion is afforded to the courts of trial.

In a short appendix the author gives a brief summary of the fields of law which are the subject of civil litigation and criminal proceedings. (Incidentally, he gives no indication that ’the lawyers in Russia may have any function otherwise than as trial advocates. Perhaps there are no circumstances in which a Soviet citizen may simply want legal advice or assistance of the kind provided by a solicitor in this country?) Civil proceedings in the Soviet Union include disputes over the validity and interpretation of wills, matrimonial proceedings, tenancies of house property and so forth—much of what would in common law countries be called family law. But the judge is by no means an independent arbiter. The court maintains a much closer control over the proceedings than in New Zealand; thus, witnesses may be called contrary to the wishes of the parties and the judges may take judicial notice of facts discovered for themselves, e.g. that the plaintiff is (say) a chronic alcoholic, or has committed adultery with a wellknown actress, matters which the common lawyer would regard as irrelevant to the question of the interpretation of a will The New Penal Code approved by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. in December, 1958, had not come into force at the timf of the author’s visit, but much of the penal law has remained unchanged. The death penalty, for example, is still mandatory on, a Soviet Court in case of a person found guilty of high treason (which includes “refusing to return from abroad for the purpose of prejudicing the Soviet State”), espionage, premeditated murder, and what is called (without more definition) “banditry.” Crimes of violence and crimes involving dishonesty seem to be no less common in the Soviet Union than in the Western world, and juvenile delinquency and larrikinism present the same kind of problems in Russia as elsewhere. Broadly speaking, prison sentences appear to be more severe than those that would be imposed by a Judge in New Zealand; but a Soviet Court seems to be more free (particularly in the case of first offenders) to impose unconventional punishments. such as forced labour at the offender’s own place of employment, or requiring him to sweep up litter in public places or wash down pavements. This system is said by its supporters to be very effective in preventing recurrences and as an example to others. This book considered from a lawyer’s point of view is incomplete and leaves many important questions unanswered—though this is not entirely the author’s fault, since he had very little time for studying the substantive law of the Soviet Union. But for a layman seeking a general conspectus of the social framework of the Soviet system, a layman who is more interested in the general picture than in the technical detail, this book will provide a very readable account.