STATUTES
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1962.tb00679.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1962 |
| Date | 01 January 1962 |
STATUTES
BARRISTERS
(QUALIFICATION
FOR
OFFICE) ACT,
1961
I
a
s
THIS
statute,'
of
two sections only, one of which is the short
title, must be one
of
the shortest Acts
of
Parliament, and for most
of
the speakers who took part in the discussions upon
it
during
its progress through the legislative machine its importance is
measured by its length. Nevertheless
it
may well prove to have
substantial significance, and
is
in
any case
of
interest to the legal
profession.
Its object is the simple one of enabling a barrister who requires
as qualification for promotion to some omce a prescribed period
of time since his call to the Bar to count as part of
it
any period
before his call during which he was in practice or employment as a
solicitor. The promoters of the Bill, which was a private member's
Bill, explained that they had in mind
no
more than the removal of
an injustice, in that
it
has for some time been the rule that a
solicitor who requires a prescribed period of service as a solicitor in
order to qualify for some position may count towards
it
the time that
he had formerly been in practice as a barrister,= which they said
made
it
only fair that a barrister who had been a solicitor should
receive similar treatment. Lord Mancroft, indeed, in moving the
second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, said he did not
think it would have much practical effect. Yet
it
is obvious that
it will make
it
much easier for solicitors to achieve promotion to
the judiciary which has certainly been difllcult for them
in
the
past. Indeed, it will become possible to indicate to a solicitor of
judicial timbre, of whom there are many in his profession, that
if
he chooses to cross over to the Bar, promotion is waiting for him.
There have,
of
course, during recent years been obvious signs
of pressure
on
the authorities to throw judicial ofRce open to
solicitors, though there is not much sign at present that it is making
much headway.a However, the new Act may in typical English
fashion prove to be the indirect response
by
providing the thin end
of
a wedge, later to be driven home, and thus it may prove more
revolutionary than Lord Mancroft anticipated.
It
may also turn out to be a step in the direction of a closer
integration of the two branches of the profession,
if
not
of fusion
itself. Several speakers indicated that they considered it as part
of a movement of this kind, referring particularly to the current
9
&
10
Eliz.
2,
c.
44.
This ie
now
provided
by
the Solicitore Act, 1957
(15
&
8
Elk.
2,
c. 97),
o.
82.
The queetion
wao
diecussed in the House
of
Lordo
on
November
28,
1961,
in
the
Committee
Stage
of
the Criminal Justice Adminiotration Bill. H.L.
Parl.
Deb.,
Vol.
235,
calr.
961-984.
59
60
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOL.
25
negotiations towards a uniform system of legal education, par-
ticularly in relation to the professional examinations. Clearly
if
members
of
the solicitors’ branch are in effect to be much more
frequently promoted to the bench it will be valuable,
if
not
necessary indeed, that they should be better acquainted with the
rules of evidence than they are encouraged to be by the present
examinations for the solicitors’ profession. Thus the Act may
assist to secure a successful issue
of
the negotiations just men-
tioned, and
in
thie way again achieve by indirect means results
beyond those anticipated by its
sponsors.
C.
INDECENCY
WITH
CHILDREN
ACT,
1960
SUICIDE
ACT,
1961
*
IN
1958
the Society of Public Teachers of Law submitted
a
Memorandum to the Lord Chancellor setting out the case for the
appointment
of
a
Criminal Law Reform Committee.s
In
February
1959
a
standing committee, known as the Criminal Law Revision
Committee, was appointed (‘to examine such aspects of the
criminal law
.
.
.
as the Home Secretary may from time to time
refer to the Committee, to consider whether the law requires
revision, and to make recommendations.”
In
the short period
of
its existence the Committee has made two reports, both of which
have been implemented by legislation.
In
its First Report‘ the Committee considered the gap in the
law relating to indecent assaults against children which was
dis-
closed
in
a
number of recent
decision^.^
The effect
of
those
decisions was that there could be
no
indecent assault unless there
was some show
or
threat of force to the victim. Section
1
(1)
of
the Indecency with Children Act,
1960,
which came into force
on
July
2,
1960,
is designed to close this gap. Henceforth, it will be
an offence
for
any person to commit an act of
gross
indecency with
or
towards a child under fourteen years of age,
or
to incite a child
of that age to such an act with him
or
another person. The
maximum penalty for conviction on indictment is two years’
imprisonment
(6
months
or
E100,
or
both,
on
summary conviction).
The section will accordingly protect young children who are used
in any way
for
the purpose of gratifying the sexual desires of
another person. The main purpose of the section is to protect
children who may be invited
to
do indecent things the nature
of
which they do not fully understand. Although it is recognised
1
8
&
8
Eliz.
2,
c.
33.
2
9
&
10
Elk.
2,
c.
60.
4
J.S.P.’I’.L.(N.s.)
‘231-232
(December
1958).
4
Indecency
with
Children. Cmnd.
896
(August
1959).
5
Fairelough
v.
Whipp
[leSl]
2
All
E.R.
894:
R.
v.
Burrowe
[1952] 1
All
E.R.
58n.
:
D.P.P.
v.
Rogers
[1963]
1
W.L.R.
1017; [l968]
fl
All
E.R.
644;
Williams
v.
Cibbs
[1958]
Crim.L.R.
127.
To continue reading
Request your trial