The Gazette 1967/71

the press. There time for protest and for debate in the Commons. Most litigants no doubt would prefer not to expose their private disputes to the public gaze, but their natural feelings must give way to the maintenance of the public benefit, which includes, although they may not realise it, their own. The Commercial Court, like any other Court, already has power to sit in private if to sit in public would defeat the ends of justice as, for example, where the trial involves the disclosure of a secret process. No further power is required and no further power should be given. No Judge should be permitted to sit behind closed doors save where justice cannot otherwise be done. As to evidence, the parties are already free to admit facts without any proof at all or to accept something less than strict proof. The power, therefore, is unnecessary unless one party objects. On what possible basis can a party be deprived of his right, at the discretion of the Judge, of being able to insist that the case against him is proved according to law? The manner of putting the proposals forward may account for the lack of discussion and protest. As so often happens now, Parliament is merely told that it is proposed to confer upon some Minister, or Committee, or other body, a power to make an Order in Council, or Regulations, or Rules of a general nature. In this case it is proposed to give the Rules Com mittee the power, by rules, to confer upon the Commercial Judges the power with or without restrictions and conditions to sit in private and to admit inadmissible evidence. The Lord Chancellor stated that he would like to regard it as a limited experiment, and that it would be for the Rules Committee to decide how far, if at all, there should be any limitation on the proposed power. In some cases this method of legislation may be justifiable. In the present case it is not. We are here dealing with the invasion of a constitutional principle. (The Law Guardian, December, 1969). STIFF EXAMINATIONS IN NEW TRAINING FOR BARRISTERS By our Legal Correspondent A NEW scheme of education and training for Bar students, published by the Council of Legal Education, involves stiffer examinations and practical exercises in advocacy designed to pro duce better-qualified barristers. 106 is, fortunately, still

may take instructions and represent his solicitor client's case to the Court.) A recent example of an unfair burden being placed upon solicitors is the case of Pearson v Pearson. The Court, if it is to be able to exercise its discretion in a suitable case, must obviously be in possession of the facts. But surely there are easier ways of eliciting them than by requiring a solicitor to go on asking embaras- singly difficult questions of his client up to the very day of the trial? A simple procedural amend ment could save this. The Court itself could be required to ask the parties if there is anything further to be disclosed. There was, however one satisfactory aspect of Pearson v Pearson, and that was the recognition by the Court of the locus stand! of The Law Society. This was probably the first judicial pronouncement on the value and import ance of the Court having before it the views of the solicitors' branch of the profession, expressed through its governing body, of the practical con sequences that may flow from decisions of the Court, even though it is regrettable that in this case the Society's views were not heeded. Their intervention did, however, successfully protect the firm of solicitors in the case upon whom damaging aspersions had been cast; the Court cleared them entirely. All credit to The Law Society for their efforts. Solicitors are tired of being made scape goats for any failures in the administration of justice. Their work is, at best, hazardous, and they are entitled to be protected from unreasonable hazards. (The Law Guardian, September3 4969). SECRET JUSTICE THE GOVERNMENT propose that the Judges of the Commercial Court, when sitting to take the Commercial list, should be empowered to try cases in secret and to reach decisions upon the basis of evidence which is not admissible under the general law of the land. The open administra tion of justice according to known laws is one of the greatest safeguards of the quality of justice and thus of liberty. One would therefore have expected that the Government's proposal would have provoked considerable discussion and debate. The Administration of Justice Bill, in which the proposal is contained has, how ever passed through the House of Lords without the proposal being debated and without a whisper of protest appearing in