The Gazette 1974

ional venue, rather than having a large turnover of

cases at a larger and more distant venue.

Pool of Judges

In paragraphs 126, 128 and 130 it is suggested that

a pool of Judges for the entire country would leave

flexibility in making Judges available to deal with

extra work in any given area. Again the problem of

part heard cases, of cases being adjourned for other

reasons as referred to above and the interruption in the

ordinary flow of work which now exists where a specific

Judge deals with a specific area, would far outweigh

any advantage which might be gained. It is not

accepted that a Solicitor would have any partial or

real

difficulty in

advising

his

client

without

knowing which particular Judge would be assigned

to deal with a sitting and without knowing that parti-

cular Judge's outlook. These are not matters of any

importance in achieving the objective named. What is

important is the fact that where a Judge is assigned to

a particular Circuit, it is possible to operate a system

which is to the public's advantage in that a County

Registrar can reasonably accurately assess with the

co-operation of local practitioners, how long particular

cases may take and thus list cases for hearing on

specific dates. The Judge may often feel inclined to sit

later than usual to complete a case to convenience

witnesses. The system must also suit the Judge in his

own personal arrangements. It is difficult to understand

how the reassignment of Judges from time to time, to

different Circuits, would bring a more uniform judi-

cial approach. A Judge always feels responsible for his

particular Circuit and in a short time becomes aware

of the particular problems in his area, the state of

crime and is thus generally in a better position to know

what the requirements of his area are from the point

of view of penalty. A common crime in one area may

not exist or may not be as prevalent in another area.

Meetings and discussions between the Judges on the

question of penalties and crime generally would, it is

believed, bring about more uniformity of approach.

The recommendation in paragraph 131 that each Cir-

cuit would have one Judge assigned for a stated period

and that a second Judge might be temporarily or per-

manently assigned depending on whether the volume of

business might warrant does not appear to be necessary.

The Society suggest that one Judge should be assigned

permanently or for a suitable long period to each Cir-

cuit as the system now operates and that in addition,

and if necessary and if and when required, two or more

further Judges should be appointed on a temporary

basis, the additional appointees to carry out temporary

duty in the area where work has fallen into arrears.

If one Circuit should become completely overloaded

then it would be more desirable to remove from that

Circuit some of the work and add it to an adjoining

Circuit which could accommodate the extra work.

This has already been achieved within the past few

years. The suggestion that where necessary two Judges

should be appointed to a country Circuit following

each other through the various Courts in the Circuit,

would, it is believed, create difficulties for the

County Registrar's office, unless his office is fully and

properly staffed with additional staff. At present the

Circuit Court sittings in country areas occur on average

four times during the year. During the sitting of the

Circuit Court, the other work of the County Registrar's

office and the time of local practitioners, is fully occu-

pied by the Court during the sitting. It is essential

that there be some reasonable time space between *

tings, so as to enable the County Registrar's office to carO

out efficiently all of the many other duties impos^

upon it, which must be left in abeyance while a Cour

is in session.

Criminal Trials

The recommendations in relation to criminal work

the Circuit Court has been opposed in almost all ai%

through the country as being unnecessary, inipractic

and almost unworkable.

Jurors

The recommendation is that criminal trials should

held only in large centres where a pool of Jurors wow

be readily available within a radius of fifteen m»®"

This recommendation is intended to reduce the ha®

ship caused by calling Jurors from outlying areas, th®-

requiring considerable travel on their part. It has bee®

the experience of the profession through the

c o u n t ry

which experience will, it is believed, be confirmed

the County Registrars in most Counties, that there is

real problem in finding Jurors to attend the Cir

Criminal Court, nor any basic objection by Jurors

attending or giving Jury service, save and except tn&

the people called to serve on juries are not in any

compensated for the financial loss which they incur

giving this service and by reason of their being a**

from their business affairs for a day or more. If

recommendation achieved an easing of the problem

jurors, that easing must be weighed against the proble®

financial or otherwise which will be created for accu

parties, their witnesses, state witnesses and their advise^

in being obliged to attend at venues which are clear

very considerable distances from their homes,

should be adequately and fully remunerated for w

service which they are called upon to perform. In m°

areas there are sufficient jurors on the list to ens®

that a person will not be called for jury service m

often than once in approximately five years.

suggested changes in the jury panel will cause cha°

and there does not appear to be any necessity at prese®

for increasing the number of people who should

obliged to give jury service.

Venue for Hearing

While, as pointed out in recommendation 133, ^

present position is rather rigid in that an accused m

uil

be returned for trial to a venue which may not have

sitting for quite some time after the date of the return-

nonetheless, this problem could be overcome quite eas®-

by a District Justice being empowered to return

person for trial to some venue other than that to whi®

he should normally be returned

provided

the accus

person so consents. Most accused persons returned f°

trial are very anxious to have a reasonable time

elap*

between the date of the return for trial and the date

trial. Time is required for the purpose of con s i de r^

an accused's defence and an accused may wish to h

time to make arrangements in relation to his busines*

should it appear from the evidence, that there is

probability of conviction. In the majority of cases

accused returned for trial will opt for a reasonable sp

aCf

of time between his return and trial rather than seek

shortening of that period. If a District Justice v^-

obliged to return a person to the next "conveni

eIlt

venue" of the Criminal Circuit Court, as is recofl

mended, this would result in many difficulties and

1,1

158