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

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

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