Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 32

Criminal Procedure

Criminal Procedure.

The treatment to which accused persons were from a very early period subjected in England was not creditable, and the reforms achieved from time to time conceding only a reasonable measure of justice to prisoners have been very gradual, and in some instances have met with unreasonable opposition. I need scarcely remind you of the time when counsel for a prisoner accused of felony was not allowed to address the jury on his behalf, although such a right was granted to one charged with treason or misdemeanour. An agitation for a reform in this branch of the law began in 1824, but for a long time met with considerable opposition, especially from Lord Lyndhurst. The desired change was most strenuously supported by Lords Brougham and Denman and Sir J. Macintosh, and also at a later period by Lord Campbell. However, it was not until the year 1836 that the law was amended. Lord Lyndhurst ultimately withdrew his opposition out of deference to the opinion of Sir Michael Foster. Messrs. George Lamb and Ewart are, however, entitled to as much credit for this amendment as any of the others whose names I have page 12 mentioned. It is a fundamental principle of the American law that a prisoner may be defended by counsel. By the Californian penal code a pauper prisoner is entitled to have counsel assigned him without any fee. In some places where counsel, at the request of the Court, defends such a prisoner, he is entitled to claim remuneration by virtue of statute law. The legal profession will, it is to be hoped, ever be willing to render assistance gratis to a prisoner in destitute circumstances, more especially when the offence with which he is charged is one of a grave character. Yet there is no reason why the defence of such a prisoner should be left even to the sympathy of lawyers, one or more of whom should be appointed by the judge of the district, or by the legal profession therein, to defend persons accused of crime, and who are unable to command professional assistance, the counsel defending being entitled to be paid by the Government reasonable remuneration. Not only so, but a prisoner should be furnished at least seven days before the trial with a copy of the indictment intended to be laid before the grand jury, and also gratis with a copy of the depositions. In civil proceedings ample safeguards exist against a defendant being suddenly called on to defend a claim, with the nature of which he may be unacquainted. How much more important is it that in criminal proceedings an accused person should not be taken by-surprise by being required to answer probably an abstruse indictment, the preparation of which may have taxed the legal knowledge of the prosecuting counsel. Moreover, a prisoner should have compulsory process without charge for the attendance of witnesses on his behalf. No opportunity should be allowed to haggle with prisoners whose circumstances may be doubtful regarding payment of fees for a copy of the depositions or for a subpœna. In California the State even makes an allowance to cover the expenses of witnesses called for the prisoner.

I have for a long time been strongly impressed with the idea that a prisoner should be entitled to give evidence on his own behalf in accordance with the maxim "audi alteram partem." In several of the States a prisoner charged with crime is entitled to give such evidence. The page 13 law, which was for some time watched with interest and misgiving, is now regarded in the States in which it is in force with the greatest favour, and there is apparently a growing tendency amongst the Americans to extend the benefit of this provision.

I hope that the New Zealand Legislature will at no distant date abolish the unjust law which prevails here, by which a prisoner is sometimes condemned practically unheard. In after years our posterity will be more astonished at the present law than we feel surprised at the objectionable and unjust rules of evidence which have from time to time prevailed in England in regard to the trial of prisoners. At one time a prisoner was not allowed to call any