On Law Reporting
| Author | Richard O'Sullivan |
| Published date | 01 October 1940 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1940.tb02736.x |
| Date | 01 October 1940 |
104
MODERN LAW REVIEW
Oct.,
1940
ON
LAW
REPORTING
HE majority Report of the Committee on Law Reporting
is at once
a
deeply interesting and a wholly disappointing
T
document.
The Committee consisted of the Hon.
Mr.
Justice Simonds
(chairman), The Hon.
Mr.
Justice Wrottesley, Professor A. L.
Goodhart, L.
S.
Holmes,
Esq.,
His Honour Judge Trevor Hunter,
K.C.,
C.
T. Le Quesne,
Esq.,
K.C.,
A.
L. C. Macaskie,
Esq.,
L.C.,
R.
F.
Roxburgh,
Esq.,
L.C.,
J.
H. Stamp,
Esq.,
Professor
P.
H.
Winfield,
J.
F.
Woodthorpe,
Esq.,
and Miss Barbara Sharp, Secre-
tary. The Committee held ten meetings and heard
a
number of
witnesses (their names are given at page
3
of the Report) and
studied
a
number
of
memoranda that were submitted.
At
the
end of twenty-two printed pages of the Majority Report the Com-
mittee say they “fear the sum of this somewhat long Report
is
negative. That there are inconveniences, to say the least, in the
present state of affairs, we are not prepared to deny. But we can-
not recommend any cure for them which would not bring greater
evils
in
its train.” And then,
a
little shamefacedly
as
it seems,
they repeat some suggestions-
I.
It
is
important that the general rule of exclusive citation
of
a
Report in the Law Reports should be enforced.
2.
The Committee is not satisfied that Reports in the Law
Reports might not be speeded up.
3.
There
is
a
large margin for difference
of
opinion
as
to
“reportable” cases. The Law Reports might take a more generous
view of what
is
reportable.
4.
The judges are advised to decline to allow a set of Reports
to
be
cited (if any other Report is available) in cases in which it
appears that the banister making the Report abuses his right
“by vouching the report with no further justification than that
he has read
a
transcript of the judgment.”
These suggestions have their value, to be sure. Yet, somehow,
one expected more from
a
Committee
so
strongly constituted. The
dissentient report of Professor Goodhart does in fact attempt to
give us something more.
It
recommends
“
that official shorthand
writers should be attached to all Courts
of
record to take and
transcribe all judgments. The transcripts should then be sent to
the judges for such revision
as
they might consider
it
desirable
to make in them. After
a
reasonably short period, not exceeding
if
possible
a
week, those transcripts would be returned to
a
central
office
at
the Law Courts, where copies could be obtained by the
reporters and by any other persons on payment
of
a
fee. All
To continue reading
Request your trial