Evidence (General). Eleventh Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee1
| Author | Colin Tapper |
| Published date | 01 November 1972 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1972.tb01344.x |
| Date | 01 November 1972 |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
EVIDENCE (GENERAL). ELEVENTH REPORT
OF
THE
CRIMINAL
LAW
REVISION
COMMITTEE
IT
took the Criminal Law Revision Committee eight years to produce
this report;
it
took most commentators fewer hours to reject
it.
Xeither time scale seems obviously satisfactory. In fact both are
misleading. The Criminal Law Revision Committee only really got
to
grips with this topic after it had compiled its report on Theft, and
despite dealing concurrently with a variety
of
other, cumulatively
time-consuming
if
individually less weighty, matters. Commentators
could guess at the shape of the report on the basis of leads given by
reports of the Law Reform Committee on evidence in civil cases,
and from the expression of influential opinions such as those of
Professor Rupert Cross and
Mr.
Robert Mark in public addresses.
It
remains true that this report constitutes the most comprehensive
review
of
the law of evidence ever undertaken in this country, that
its recommendations are far-reaching and in some respects revolu-
tionary, and that it deserves a thorough critical appraisal. This note
does not masquerade as such an appraisal.
It
seeks only to consider
the general context, style and principles of the report, in the belief
that more detailed analysis of particular topics will constitute further
notes and articles.
There are now three official bodies concerned with law reform in
this country, the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the Law
Reform Committee and the Law Commission. This is unsatisfactory,
and can nowhere be seen
to
be more unsatisfactory than in relation
to the reform of the law of evidence. This very report is prefaced
by reference to expectations that the Law Commission will codify the
whole of the law of evidence, and is punctuated by expressions of
the desirability of comparable developments on both the civil and
criminal side. Such harmony has not been promoted by the division
of responsibility between the Law Reform Committee and the Crimi-
nal Law Revision Committee, nor enhanced by their totally different
strategies. T.he Law Reform Committee concentrated intensively on
a few key areas, and set reports, bills and acts humming along the
parliamentary pipeline one after another. The Criminal Law Revi-
sion Committee preferred a more pervasive, if less perfervid,
approach. The result is that in some areas, such as hearsay, the
Criminal Law Revision Committee has been confronted by a fait
accompli to which it has, in some respects reluctantly, felt con-
strained
to
conform
';
in others, such as cross-examination of wit-
1
Cmnd.
4991.
2
See
para.
24.1.
621
To continue reading
Request your trial