MAN AND HIS PAST

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 119, 16 November 1936, Page 18

MAN AND HIS PAST

FEAR OF COURT RULING

Ought evidence as to the character and antecedents of a a man accused1 of an indictable offence to be heard before his case is dealt with finally? The question was discussed recently at a meeting of Surrey Magistrates, at Kingston, says the "Daily Telegraph." They referred to a committee for consideration and report a resolution passed by Epsom Justices, which advanced the" contention that a "cardinal principle" of British justice, was in danger of being -vitiated as a-conse-quence of a decision given by the Court : of Criminal Appeal in the case of Rex v. Sheridan, in June. In this case the Court of Criminal Appeal composed of Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Humphreys, and Mr. Justice Hilberry, quashed the conviction of Frank Sheridan, a motor engineer, who had been sentenced at Southend Quarter Sessions to nine months' imprisonment on two charges of fraud. One ground of appeal was that a plea of autrefois convict (previously convicted) had been overruled at his trial. It .was stated that at the Police Court hearing the Justices announced that they had found the man guilty. Evidence of previous convictions was given and thereafter they decided to commit for trial. The Appeal Court held that the Justices, by convicting, had proceeded to adjudicate and that the plea of autrefois convict had been established. MORE COMMITTALS. The Epsom Justices put forward their resolution and observations to obtain the opinion of the other Magistrates in the county and to consider .the procedure to be adopted in petty sessions so as to safeguard as.far as possible the interests of the accused. They stated: "In view of the judgment in Sheridan's case it is clear that Justices are now. required as a preliminary to dealing summarily with an indictable offence to hear and to take into consideration, the character and antecedents of the accused to enable them to decide whether they ought to deal with the case summarily. . "It is. thought that where the accused had been previously convicted,, the disclosure of such convictions at an early stage of the hearing before the Justices will create an unfavourable impression on the minds of the accused and the public. "Even if previous convictions are not reported it is probable that in certain cases jurors .will form the opinion that the accused had been committed for trial because he had been previously convicted. "It appears that as a result of the decision -in Rex v. Sheridan many cases which have been hitherto dealt with at petty sessions at the desire of all. concerned will; in future be committed, for trial. This will entail greater expense, delay, and inconvenience to witnesses and further expenditure of the time of the police in court." MAGISTRATE'S "WAY OUT." Mr. J. H. W. Pilcher, who presided over the county Magistrates' meeting, said that Justices did not feel that their minds could be quite unbiased if they had already heard . the. prisoner's record. A man might, have a bad character in one sense and yet it might hot affect their minds in trying a case in -vvhich a different*class of offence was alleged. He thought there was a way out by sometime asking the Magistrates', clerk whether there was any objection to trying a case summarily, ft they said "no," the Justices. could hear it. If they said "yes" and the Justices thought evidence of character would affect their; minds, the best course would be to commit for trial. Mr. W. L. Bailey.said that they must obey the law as it was; they must not try to dodge the decision. He suggested that by the end of a year they would haye sufficient experience to see things working under the decision.

He thought it was workable.. If it were not they, would, have a strong case for calling for legislation. on the matter. 7 .