The Report of the Tucker Committee on Proceedings before Examining Justices (July, 1958: Cmnd 479)
| Published date | 01 November 1958 |
| Date | 01 November 1958 |
| Author | J. E. Hall Williams |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1958.tb00502.x |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
THE
REPORT
OF
THE
TUCKER
COMMITTEE
ON
PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE
EXAMINING
JUSTICES
(JULY,
1958:
CWD.
479)
IN
June
1957
the twelve members of this Departmental Committee
were asked to consider
“
whether proceedings before examining
justices should continue to take place in open court, and
if
so,
whether
it
is necessary or desirable‘ that any restriction should be
placed
on
the publication
of
reports
of
such proceedings.” The
widespread publicity which had attended the preliminary examina-
tion in the case of Dr. John Bodkin Adams at Eastbourne had
given rise to the suspicion that the jury might have been prejudiced
by prior knowledge
of
the case, which would make their task in
reaching
a
fair verdict more difficult. The verdict
of
acquittal
to
some extent allayed such fears, though a great many persons
remained uneasy about the effect of such pre-trial publicity, and
there was sdcient public concern to force the Government to set
up this Committee, charged with a full investigation of the legal
position. Now, just over twelve months later, we have their report
and unanimous recommendations. After holding many meetings
and receiving much evidence, the Committee, in twenty-five closely
reasoned pages, dispose of this highly controversial question
in
what
it
will be submitted is
a
most satisfactory manner.
An account of the history
of
proceedings before examining
justices shows that they were originally part
of
the inquisitorial
process leading up to prosecution, and as such were not regarded
as judicial proceedings
at
all
in
the sense that they had to take
place in open court. The Indictable Offences Act,
1848
(€mown
as Jervis’ Act, after Sir John Jervis, the AtCorney-General who
introduced it) for the first time allowed the accused person the
right to be present at the examination
of
the witnesses against
him, but at the same time
it
expressly provided, by section
19,
that the room
or
building in which
a
justice or justices took
examinations in indictable offences should not be deemed an open
court, and allowed the justices to exclude
persons
other than those
directly concerned in the proceedings. Despite the consolidating
character of these latter provisions, the Act seems to have marked
a
turning point in magisterial practice, for thereafter committal
proceedings were normally taken in open court. In
1884
some
doubts arose about the continuance in force
of
section
19
of
the
Act of
1848,
in view of certain provisions
of
the Summary Juris-
diction Act,
1884,
and these were never entirely resolved until the
Magistrates’ Courts Act,
1952,
which, in section
4
(2),
simply pro-
vided that examining justices were not obliged to sit in open court.
647
To continue reading
Request your trial