• . and at Home
The resounding judgment by the Court of Criminal Appeal—that 'it is a cardinal principle of our criminal law that in considering their verdict, concerning as it does the liberty of the subject, the jury shall deliberate in complete free- (1,°111, uninfluenced by any promise, unintimidated °Y any threat'—represents an admirable addition to the long line of great legal pronouncements; but we could wish that this concern with the liberty of the subject could be extended to rather more deserving cases. The recent Report of a Home Office research unit, Time Spent Awaiting 7 'la', has provided factual evidence of what was already surmised, that a deplorable number of People are being kept in prison for long periods before trial, contrary to another 'cardinal principle Of our criminal law.' Of the people' charged who are refused bail by the magistrates' courts—and they spend on an average six to seven weeks in custody—a quarter are subsequently either re- 'eased (4 per cent.) or not sent to prison or any other form of detention after conviction (21 per cent.). In the case of the 21 per cent. it is, of !purse, possible to argue that some, might have been given gaol sentences had they not already spent some time in custody; nevertheless, the ugures reveal that unlucky people are being deprived of their liberty for long spells because the machinery of justice is far too sloW.
it has also not 'passed unnoticed, in connection !'t11 this judgment, that the enthusiasm of the 'our( of appeal for the liberty of the subject and for the jury system is not shared by all judges in the lower courts—to judge by sentences for contempt of court.
Previous page
