✍ Scribed by Nicholas Fairbairn
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
As a result of historical origins of great difference, there are two quite distinct systems of criminal prosecution in Great Britain, the system in England and Wales and the system in Scotland. However different the structure of these two procedures is, there is one central assumption o both, namely that a defendant or accused is innocent until he is proved guilty. The recent committal proceedings at Minehead have reminded the country of the characteristic of the procedure in England, which is largely historic and presently, in my belief, archaic, superfluous and unfair, and certainly prima facie contradictory of the presumption of innocence. Few people will not have read or heard on television precis of parts of the evidence of the Thorpe case, and most of those will have already come to some conclusion about some of the charges or the facts from which they arise, and it is from those people that the 12 members of the Jury who eventually try the case will be drawn. The committal proceedings in England were introduced 500 or more years ago as a safeguard against the habit of the Barons to try people whom they wished to dispose of on trumped-up charges on no evidence. Accordingly it was decided that the people should have an opportunity to scrutinise the case before the defendant could be tried and thus to block bogus disposals. Those of course were in the days when there was no Press and no instant communication and people could disappear rather easily and rather permanently without appeal. In Scotland by contrast committal proceedings have long since been purely symbolic and at their zenith merely represented an opportunity for an accused person to protest his innocence or state his defence at the earliest possible opportunity. Thus in Scotland the first word of evidence that a juror hears is from the mouth of the first witness, whereas the jurors in England will not only have read bits of the evidence in the Press, heard bits of the evidence on television, and discussed bits of the evidence a t home and at work, but they will also, once empanelled, have the doubtful benefit of an account of what the evidence is supposed to be going to be from Crown Counsel. I t is quite beyond the comprehension of the Scottish practitioner to understand how the juror could sustain the presumption of innocence to the point where he first hears a word of evidence. The English system doubles the cost to the defendant or the State and therefore also the benefit to the legal fraternity who are the first to leap to its defence. Firstly they claim that a few cases are thrown out at committal proceedings and therefore those people are saved the cost of a trial and the torment of waiting for one, which may be years. The answer to that argument is quite simple. I t is absurd to double the expense of the majority in order to halve the expense of a handful. It is equally absurd to protract the waiting period for the majority in order to curtail it for a few. In Scotland everyone only has to pay for and sit through one hearing and all trials on indictment must conclude in 110 days if the person is in custody and 12 months if he is not. The Tucker Committee recommended the abolition of publicity at committal proceedings. This was rejected by the House of Commons 25 years ago but I have introduced a Bill to achieve that reform which has the overwhelming support of the majority of the House of Commons and will shortly become law. That will be a useful point from which to abolish the whole anachronistic procedure of committal proceedings in England which have long since ceased to serve justice and now manifestly frustrate it. NICHOLAS FAIRBAIRN House of Commons February 1979 [The passage through the Commons of Fairbairn's bill was interrupted by the dissolution of Parliament in April 1979-Ed.].
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES