Statutes
| Published date | 01 January 1965 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1965.tb01047.x |
| Date | 01 January 1965 |
STATUTES
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
(RIGHT
OF
REPLY)
Am,
1964
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
(INSANITY)
ACT,
1964
THESE two statutes carry into effect, with a few alterations, the
Third and Fourth Reports of the Criminal Law Revision Committee.’
It is probably too early to assess their effect
on
criminal
trials,
but
the first, which gives the defence the right to make the
last
speech
to the
jury,
may encourage judges to make greater use
of
their
power to comment adversely
on
the defence’s failure
to
call
certain
witnesses.
In
some cases this may be unfair, because the defence
does not normally have the same ease as the prosecution in securing
the attendance of witnesses,
or
in obtaining advance notice of their
evidence. The existing procedure for compelling attendance is
complicated and obscure,* and until the Committee’s recent pro-
posals in this regard are implemented, it is probable that the
defence
will
have to rely
on
the willingness of the police
to
conduct
inquiries
on
its behalf. This assistance is rarely very
fruitful
if
the
defendant is in custody and has only a hazy knowledge
of
the
identity
or
the whereabouts
of
a potential witness. Furthermore,
the disadvantage of having a potential witness interviewed first by
the police is obvious. Quite apart from these factors, a judge may
not always appreciate the real dilemma facing the defence
if
an
adjournment must be requested at a crucial stage of the
trial
in
order to secure the attendance of a witness whose evidence may only
serve to forestall adverse judicial criticism of the
kind
mentioned.
The Act follows the form of the draft
Bill
annexed
to
the
Committee’s Report, but it is a pity that more consideration
was
not given to the significance of openingspeeches.
If
trial by
jury
is to be retained, should not the defence be allowed,
if
it wishes, to
make an opening speech before
any
evidence
is
called
so
that the
jury
can
be
informed in advance of all the issues which
it
must,
or
may have to, determine?
At
present, the significance of questions
and answers in cross-examination often passes unnoticed by the jury
because their relevance is not immediately apparent.
The second Act differs slightly from the draft
Bill
annexed to
the Committee’s Fourth Report, and in the main the amendments
do not call for extended comment. The clarification
of
the factors
to be taken into account when considering postponement
of
the
1
Cmnds.
2148
and
2149
(September,
1963),
noted at
(1964)
27
M.L.R.
203.
2
Perjury and Attendance
of
Witnesses (Criminal Law Revision Committee:
8
Ibid.
paras.
41
to
46.
Sixth Report. Cmnd.
2465
of
1964),
paras.
30
to
32.
72
To continue reading
Request your trial