Justice for Traffic Offenders
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By Our Legal Adviser
THE present dreary system of dealing
with minor motoring offences which results in the •choking of the work of magistrates' .courts, the wasting of much valuable police time and not infrequently some injustice, has tended to bring the law into contempt. To sit through a morning's work at one of our busier courts is to be amazed at the conduct of proceedings like a sausage machine and yet, uneasy with the thought that no doubt these things are better ordered elsewhere.
It is in these circumstances that the new Magistrates' Court hill, which received a second reading in the House of Lords last week, has been promoted.
The Bill—it may, of course, undergo changes, although as it is a Government measure and non-controversial these are unlikely to be substantial—is designed to give effect to the recommendations of a departmental committee and should be much welcomed_ Whilst undoubtedly' improving the present position, it seems to do so successfully without any serious threat to individual liberty or rights.
Scope of the Bill
Its provisions apply to all offences triable by magistrates' courts, except ' those which-are also triable on indictment before a jury, those triable only by juvenile courts and those which carry a possible sentence of imprisonment for more than three months. It does not apply only to offences under the Road Traffic Acts.
The purpose of Clause I is to enable the court to hear and dispose of a summons in the absence of the defendant Where he has notified his intention to plead guilty—whether or not the prosecutor is also absent. As now occurs, if a defendant is not present in court, either in person or by a legal representative on his behalf, it is impossible for the court to act on a written admission of guilt contained in a letter from the defendant.
This is always kept by the magistrate's clerk well out of sight until the police officer in the case has gabbled through his evidence and "proved his case," whereupon the clerk then produces the letter and generally reads it aloud to the Bench. When it contains—as it generally does—an admission of guilt and an apology—and in some cases even a blank cheque to pay the resultant fine!—an onlooker might wonder why the policeman's evidence and presence were necessary at all.
Now, under the Bill, if the. magistrate's clerk is notified by the prosecution that the defendant has been served at the Same time as the summons with a short statement of what facts are alleged against him, together with an explanation of the effect of this particular piece of legislation, then if the defendant notifies the court in writing of his intention to plead guilty without attending the court, the whole matter may be disposed of by simply considering the statement of facts served on the defendant. This obviates the necessity of the attendance of witnesses.
Protection -for Defendant
The defendant is fully protected in three important particulars:— (a) He may change his mind right up to the time of the hearing if he notifies the clerk to the court in writing of the fact, in which case the prosecution must go through the motions of proof as they do now.
(b) Only the statement of facts already sewed upon him may be read to the court—it cannot be embellished in any way.by the prosecution, (c) The court cannot imprison him or disqualify him in his absence without an adjournment to enable him to attend. •
Most minor motoring offences are for speeding or obstruction, and most offenders at present feel able to trust that the matter will be fairly disposed of in their absence, contenting themselves with an apology and a brief statement of whatever mitigating circumstances they can urge in their letters.
Under the new system they will know
that nothing can be said behind their backs to make the offence"sound worse than it appears from the Statement of facts served with the summons,whic:t isan improvement on the present position, for now no one knows the contents of the constable's notebook. until—ponderously and effectively—he
refers to it at the hearing. •
In only one respect will an offender be definitely worse off under the new provisions—and that is not, strictly speaking, a matter upon which he would be entitled to any sympathy. At present it is impossible for an offender's previous convictions to be given in evidence to the court in his absence. There seems to be some divergence of practice in different courts, but the better opinion is that it is improper and it is rarely done.
By Clause 3 of the Bill, however, it Will now be possible for the prosecution to bring such previous convictions to the notice of the, court if, not less than seven days previously, a notice to that effect, setting out such convictions, has been served on the defendant.
What to Do
Persons served with a summons in future should consider just as seriously as before what is in their best interests. If there is no alternative but to plead guilty, by all means write a letter, as now, and admit the offence. However, if the " statement of facts" served with the summons is inaccurate, so as to give the impression that the offence is worse than it really is, one should certainly attend the court and say so. Even more ,should one attend if . it is wrongly alleged that one has been previously convicted. .
It is of no use contesting the facts by letter—whether pleading guilty or not guilty. Moreover, it should always be borne in mind that if there i are mitigating circumstances of importance, the court is much more likely to •accept them if told about them in person— and preferably on oath—than by letter.
The Bin is unlikely to become law for about two months, and by Clause 4(4) there will then be a further period of two months before its provisions come into effect. There can be no doubt, however, that when in force it will promote a "new look" in dealing with traffic. offences