REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
| Published date | 01 March 1970 |
| Date | 01 March 1970 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1970.tb01265.x |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEEIS
THE
REPORT OF
THE
ROYAL
COMMISSION
ON
ASSIZES
AND
QUARTER
SESSIONS
CRITICS
and would-be reformers of British institutions often
describe them as
"
medieval." The adjective normally equals
'(
very old,"
or
perhaps just
"
old," but
it
contains the pejorative
element which critics require to use before unmasking their
batteries-it is the
"
weasel word beloved of Jerome Frank.
Used as a description
of
the English court system the word
"
medieval
"
is, however, almost completely accurate,
for
apart
from the county dourts, the most valuable utilitarian legacy of
Jeremy Bentham to our legal administrative set-up, that system
follows substantially the pattern laid down
in
the middle ages.
Such changes as have been made have been applied almost entirely
in London; thus accentuating the dominant position of the capital
city, itself already established
in
the middle ages and becoming
unfortunately a more and more pronounced factor
of
unbalance
during the succeeding centuries.
Apart from the county courts justice in the provinces has in
its middle and higher reaches always been administered
in
courts
of
assize and quarter sessions which are based
on
a system
of
shires
and counties going back beyond the middle ages themselves. Ever
since modern industrial England came into existence the cramping
effects
of
this system have been more
and
more felt. This has
resulted
in
the setting up of commissions and committees charged
with the task
of
working out
a
system which would meet the
needs
of modern England. Almost the first thing
I
can remember after
my call
to
the Bar in
1920
was the setting up
of
such a committee
of which an acquaintance
on
the Northern Circuit was made sec-
retary and which produced some useful palliative proposals.
On
some occasions pretty radical schemes were put forward, but these
always foundered
on
the twin
rocks
of local patriotism and the
Englishman's delight
in
having things recognisably the same as
they always have been. To get anything accepted
it
had
to
be
in
the shape
of
a patch which would not show up too vividly upon
the homespun of the existing administrative coat, and quite a bit
of
patching of this kind has been done during the past century.
Committees with judges as chairmen are adept at this
kind
of
thing, and in this way, somehow, the wheels
of
the administration
of
justice have been kept revolving. By the
1960s)
however, the
economy had heated up to the point where the business arising
in
all the industrial areas was becoming more than the courts could
1
Cmnd.
4153.
184
MAR.
1970
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
185
manage, and the ever-increasing wave of crime was calling for the
deployment
of
a
judicial manpower which
if
it
existed at all could
not find the
courts
within which to operate.
The Lord Chancellor evidently felt that a commission of the
normal type could not satisfy the current requirements, and recog-
nising that the problem is essentially one of administration rather
than of law determined to call upon for chairman one who had
become the best known administrator in the country when
as
1.C.1.’~
Dr.
Beeching he was borrowed
to
devise a plan
to
put the
tottering railway system
on
its feet once more. As Lord Beeching
he has headed and clearly influenced this Commission. Its Report
is already known by the name of its chairman, and it is my task
in the following pages to set out, and discuss its principal
recommendations.
Before turning
to
the details of these
I
will, however, make
some observations
of
a
general character.
First of all a cursory perusal
of
the summary
of
recommenda-
tions (p.
189)
shows that this Report falls into what might be
termed the radical class.
It
will offend many local patriots,# and,
if
put into effect, substantially alter the pattern of administering
justice which has prevailed in provincial England since the middle
ages. According
to
the historical precedents which
I
have men-
tioned
it
should not therefore
be
viable. There
are,
however,
several cogent reasons why it has a fair chance of becoming opera-
tive. In the first place the local authorities who are much the best
armed of the defenders of the status quo are reeling under the
blows aimed at them by the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, to the
extent that they will not be able
to
provide the mass of manoeuvre
required for the defence of their courts of assize and quarter ses-
sions.
In
the second place the existing system is
so
near breaking
point, as appears time after time from this Report, that all those
in
responsible administrative positions
in
the legal profession,
whether judges
or
lawyers, are more concerned than ever before
that something drastic should be done and be done quickly, as
indeed are many
of
their most influential customers both actual
and potential: this appears from the imposing list of organisations
and persons who gave evidence
to
the Commission as set out in
Appendix
I.
The Report is certainly radical rather than revolution-
ary. Thus the proposals which have been put forward from time
to
time
for
provincial
courts
with full jurisdiction hardly receive
attention. The Commission are satisfied as
to
the great value of the
system of itinerant judges, by means
of
which uniformity can be
attained in sentencing, administration and other matters. London
retains, therefore, its dominance, and this will
no
doubt help the
Report’s chances
of
implementation.
From the point
of
view
of
presentation the Beeching Report is
a model.
It
is
so
clearly written as
to
be intelligible
to
any sensible
layman, indeed
I
have heard
it
commended in glowing terms by
VOL.
33
7
To continue reading
Request your trial