Nightmares for Chief Justice

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33044, 11 October 1972, Page 1

Nightmares for Chief Justice

i ne back-log of criminal cases awaiting trial in England was a problem that caused him nightmares ... “I frequently awake to worry about it,” said the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Widgery) in Christchurch yesterday. Lord Widgery said that the recorders were invaluable in the English system of justice in that they shared the work load with Judges. ■ “We have some 200 recorders—barristers who promise, to do 20 sitting days a year presiding over criminal cases,” he said. [The number of criminal trials in England increased by 25 per cent last year.] One way to reduce the number of criminal trials would be to allow the right of election by trial only on charges in which the punishment may be six months or a year’s imprisonment. All lesser criminal charges would

be dealt with in the Magistrate’s ' Couft. Many English judges are chosen from among recorders. Lord Widgefy was a recorder before being made a judge of thexHigh Court. The appointment of recorders to relieve judges of thq Supreme .Court in ’New Zealand was' suggested a few years ago, but nothing came of it. At present, there is no back-log of any significance of criminal cases awaiting trial in Christchurch. A person charged with a criminal offence in New Zealand. may elect trial by jury if he is liable to more than three ' months Imprisonment on conviction.’ , 1 Lord Widgery, aged 61, looked very fit and lively, and answered reporters’ questions incisively yesterday. . He said that the provision for majority jury verdicts in criminal cases, introduced by legislation in 1967, had proved itself very worth while. A person may be found guilty by a verdict of 10 to two. . “There is no capital pun-

ishment in England now, but ’ even if there were hanging < I would' still support a ma- i jority verdict. I would be ’ very, very 'hesitant to bring < the majority verdict'down'to ] nine.to three. We have quite a lot of 11 to one verdicts-— < more , than 10 to two,” Lord < Widgery said. > He said that having, a <na- * jority verdict ■ made it harder ■ for juries to be suborned. ! Persons had to bribe, or inter- 1 fere with three on a jury, in- 1 stead of only one. It also cut ' out the juror who would not find 1 a person guilty because he knew something of the accused, or something about the case outside the evidence 1 given. • > i • i ( Suppression opposed J Lord Widgery said he was i not in favour of suppression ' of the accused’s name in a i criminal, trial, until he had ] been convicted—as sugges- < ted by the annual meeting of 1 the New Zealand Jaycees. 1 Publication of an accused’s name and relevant details i frequently resulted in wit- 1 nesses coining forward. 1

"Sometimes they appear out of the blue. I can personally recall several cases in which witnesses for the defence came forward because of publicity. , : . "Publicity is an evil. but, on the balance, a necessary evil, I think. “I do not consider-publi-cation of an accused’s name should' be made as part of that person’s punishment. If it can be shown clearly that publication of the person’s name will cause suffering, then I feel that a judge may give him a lesser sentepce, taking into account:the fact that h|s name has been made public.” Lord Widgery is at present touring the South Island. He is in New Zealand to attend the New Zealand Law Society's triennial conference which will open in the Christchurch Town Hall on Friday. He will address the conference after the opening by the Governor-General (Sir Denis Blundell). Lord Widgery said he wanted to acquaint himself with the working of law in New Zealand in regard to legal

aid in criminal cases. He was chairman of the Departmental Committee on Legal Aid in Criminal Cases which sat in England in 1964-65. “The recent procedure under which an accused person may contribute towards part of his costs, the Crown contributing the remainder, is working well. The, practice of ‘all, or none at all’ in criminal legal aid was not satisfactory. ■ “It, was a suggestion of mine that persons with some resources pay part of the costs; and I am happy to say it is working very well. In the first full year, contributions by persons accused amounted, to several hundreds of thousands of pounds —about £350,000 but I am not certain of the , figure,” he said. 1 • , In New Zealand, a person either qualifies for legal aid in criminal cases, or he does not—it is all, or none at all. The matter was raised by the Secretary for Justice (Mr E. A. Missen) in his report to Parliament this year. He pointed to the British practice.