The Gazette 1973

will be taken on this question. France has already stated that it doesn't consider the question as being of major importance at the moment. If one is to believe the "meeting of minds" on these questions between Presi- dent Pompidou and Mr. Heath at their first bilateral meeting last year, the British Government is also of the same opinion. What could happen is that if agreement is not reached at the Summit, some govern- ments (Luxembourg has already stated as much) would propose that member countries should proceed to im- plement direct elections unilaterally. Closer co-operation between National Parliaments There are a number of other areas where the group proposed a wide range of changes no less important than those already mentioned. For example, the report stresses the importance of increased links and closer co- operation between the national parliaments and the European Parliament by means of joint committees, coordination of time-tables, etc. The necessity for in- creased budgetary powers with reference to the com-

munity's decision in 1970 (control by the European Parliament over the community budget from 1975) was also discussed at length. The Vedel report is now in the hands of the Com- mission. The reactions to the report have been very favourable, although a number of comments were made inside the Commission to the effect that they felt the report didn't go far enough and was in fact a mini- malist approach to the whole question. They were dis- appointed that the report did not opt for more precise timetables in the changes it proposed. An important point to note here is that many of the proposals put forward by the Vedel group do not need any changes in the Treaties, and can therefore be implemented without any hindrance—if the govern- ments agree—immediately the enlargement is achieved on the 1st January 1973. ERWAN FOUERE, European Community Institute for University Studies.

LAWYERS POUR ABUSE ON COURT "REFORMS" by MICHAEL ZANDER

unless safeguards were developed such as tape recorders in the police station or duty solicitors, unless the interro- gation took place before an examining magistrate or some equivalent. Independent evidence of interrogations would also assist with the unsatisfactory situation regarding alleged confessions. Release rejects the proposal to make previous convic- tions admissible where the accused admits the basic facts but denies that he had the necessary criminal intent. This, it says, would amount to a denial of justice for a defendant with a record. The problem would be particularly acute in summary trials because the magistrates would have to decide whether evidence of previous convictions was admis- sible. The decision would normally go against the defen- dant, particularly if he was unrepresented. Even if the magistrates ruled against the evidence there was no requirement that the case be passed to another bench unaware of the record. The proposal that hearsay evidence should be more readily admissible is also criticised. The safeguard that the defendant be informed in advance of any such evidence was not to apply to magistrates' courts and this raised the prospect of an unrepresented defendant being faced with statements from witnesses whom he had never seen and had no chance to cross-examine. The proposal opened vast new areas for abuse in police officers getting written statements from one co-accused for use against another. Release Lawyers, "Guilty Until Proved Innocent?" 40p. Release, 1 Elgin Avenue, London W.9. The Guardian (30th March 1973) 153

The controversial recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee on the rights of the accused are severely criticised in an unusually outspoken report by a group of barristers and solicitors who work for the organisation Release. They say the committee's report is like the prescrip- tion of a doctor who misreads all his patient's symptoms, ignores any scientific method of treatment, prescribes treatment which bears no relation to his illness, and which is likely to make the patient sicker than before. Release gives advice in over 1,600 criminal cases a year, mainly in the magistrates' courts, and the report accuses the committee of having completely failed to consider the effect of its recommendations in summary trials. The lawyers suggest that the committee was entirely wrong to proceed on the assumption that the present rules are loaded in favour of the accused. In many ways the accused suffered considerable dis- advantages, especially in the magistrates' courts: he did not have advance information on the evidence against him; unless he had legal aid, which was rare for summary trials, he normally lacked the means to pre- pare his case; in the police station he was usually denied access to a solicitor; in a significant number of cases the police distorted or even fabricated evidence and were normally believed in preference to the defendant; and many magistrates appeared to think that to reject police evidence was to undermine the authority of the law. The committee's recommendation to abolish the sus- pect's right of silence in the police station would greatly increase the danger of an innocent man being con- victed and would place dangerous new powers in the hands of the police. The proposal was unacceptable