Preliminary Examinations
| Date | 01 April 1957 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835702100210 |
| Published date | 01 April 1957 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Preliminary Examinations
INrecent weeks
the
centuries-old practice of holding apre-
liminary examination of an indictable offence before magis-
trates prior to trial of the offender at assizes or quarter sessions
has come
under
heavy fire. Are these examinations fair to the
accused, it is asked,
and
indeed need they be held at all?
The
question of their fairness arises as it did recently
when
the
preliminary examination is in connection with a
charge which has excited great public interest
and
for that
reason is reported almost verbatim in the popular press.
From
those who read such reports may be drawn at least some of the
jury
who will later have to pronounce averdict
upon
the
accused.
They
must
therefore come to
the
trial with some
preconceptions and very probably with some prejudice against
him.
This
is all the more likely as generally speaking
the
defence is reserved at these investigations so
that
students of
the
trial in the newspapers get only
the
case for the prosecution.
It
is indeed an extraordinary thing that
the
law does allow
verbatim reports of these examinations when it is so severe
upon
any comment made upon judicial proceedings generally
which are sub judice.
Not
long ago
the
editor of a popular
morning newspaper was sent to prison for doing so.
To
a large extent the remedy for this defect lies in the
hands of the examining justices. Section 4(2) of the Magis-
trates' Courts Act, 1952 provides
that
'Examiningjustices shall
not
be obliged to sit in open court'. Some years ago a metro-
politan magistrate did announce
that
he would hear prelimin-
ary examinations at his court in camera. But pressure was
brought
upon
him by
the
press and influential people to desist.
The
isolated bench who decides to take such acourse where
proceedings are of considerable public interest will need a
great store of courage. All courts should hear these exam-
inations in private or not at all. Possibly some private member
of Parliament lucky with the ballot might bring in a short
amending measure deleting
the
words
'be
obliged
to'
from
the
Section we have quoted so
that
it would read 'Examining
justices shall not sit in open court'!
173
To continue reading
Request your trial