The Gazette 1967/71

no A

still

is

there

that

Mr. Sherrard points out

without any obligation on the accused to testify. He strongly disagreed with proposals of a committee of Justice, the all-party lawyers group, that a person suspected on reasonable grounds of having committed an indictable offence, should be required to attend before a magistrate and to answer police questions. Justice also proposed that if a prima facie case emerged, the accused would be compelled to give evidence at his trial. He objected because it would give great power to the police "exercisable in every indictable case, for use against the innocent as well as the guilty and capable, like all powers, of abuse." There was no proof this was necessary for the contain ment of crime or that it would be likely to reduce crime to any considerable extent. Even if he was sure that all, or nearly all, the questioned persons would be guilty, he would still withhold these powers on the ground of cruelty. "I think it cruel to compel a man to choose between confessing his guilt, committing perjury or standing mute and suffering whatever penalties you care to attach to his silence. "To avoid such cruelty is in my eyes, one mark of a civilised community." The burden of proof was on those who proposed to diminish the citizen's rights. It was a "heavy burden" not to be discharged by mere phrases such as "the war against crime" or by invoking "the needs of a modern society." (Daily Telegraph, 25 June, 1970). 3—Fraud beyond most juries', says QC A panel of special assessors drawn from those of experience and distinction in commerce should replace the conventional jury in complex fraud cases, a leading criminal lawyer claimed. Writing in the latest Law Guardian, Mr. Michael Sherard. Q.C., who defended Hanratty in the A6 murder trial and recently represented Xonn Bloom, the former washing-machine magnate, said that trying complicated fraud cases was quite beyond the capacity of the average jury. Though many lawyers would agree that juries, more often than not. managed to produce what seemed to be the right result in the end, it was "idle to pretend that the element of pure chance is not great." There was a real danger that the case for the accused could be lost beneath a mountain of paper and a mass technical oral evidence. "One has to face the serious fact that the sort of person who mieht be capable of understanding the case and doing real justice to it is usually so occupied in his own business or professional activitv as to be reasonably entitled to ask to be excused from such a time-consuming duty. "Conversely those who have the time to serve on such a jury are often ill-equipDed intellectually or otherwise for the task. They might try other cases admirably; but complicated fraud cases are quite beyond their reasonable capacity." A layman called upon for jury service -in a fraud case might have to serve for months on end to cope with technical commercial Toblems and to understand and interoret accounts and documents with which he was entirely unfamiliar. , ^

jurors.

for

standard

educational

minimum

recommendation by a committee in 1965 that jurors should at least be able to read, write and speak and understand English had still not been implemented. He suggests that the panel of special assessors should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. No member would be called upon to try more than one or two "heavy fraud cases" during his appointment so that the burden would not be excessive and the danger, of becoming "case-hardened" would be slight. When a complicated fraud case was committed for trial, the prosecution or the defence could a""'v to the Queen's Bench Divisional Court for a certificate that the case was suitable for trial by special assessors. If granted, the case would be heard by a judge of the Commercial Court sitting with six assessors drawn from the panel. A similar scheme for trying fraud cases was suggested last year by Mr. Justice Lawton. Trials of John Bloom after the collapse of the Rolls Razor empire had been expected to last three and seven months. They did not go ahead because Bloom pleaded guilty to two lesser charges of fraud while pleas of not guilty to six other charges concerned with the company's affairs were accepted by the prosecution. He was fined £30,000 but not sent to prison. Recently Bloom claimed he had been assured by his lawyers that if he pleaded guilty to two lesser charges and the six others were dropped by the prosecution, he would get The Belfast murder trial was discontinued and the jury discharged yesterday following applications by the three defence counsel. The three men who were accused of murdering Constable Victor Arbuckle, will be re-tried in the autumn. Applications for bail were refused. This sensational develonment in the trial was heralded by a 45-minute delay in the return of Mr. Justice McGonigal and counsel after the lunch-time break the ninth day of the trial. The judge heard submissions that the bus taking the jury to and from the court each day had passed the scene of the crime, and also that at lunch-time, the three defence counsel had walked passed what they now believed was the jury room in the courthouse in which a window was open and their conversation may have been heard by the jury. Giving his decision to discharge the jury, Mr. Jutice McGonigal said : "I am doubtful, but I think the fact that I am doubtful is sufficient, as even the risk of mis carriage of iustice must be avoided." Accused of the capital murder of Constable Arbuckle are Thomas Rountree (411, Belfast: Ernest Bell (281, Suffolk Co. Antrim and William Duncan (261. Belfast. They are also accused of maliciously wounding four people, including a former "B" Special, a policeman, a soldier' and a civilian, and they each face five separate firearms and ammunition charges. They plead not guiltv of all the charges. Making their submissions, the three defence counsel said the' bus which took the jury to and from the courthouse each day passed bv Townsend St. and the junction of Peter's Hill and the Shankill Road. The "no bird." 4—Murder trial shock — jury discharged

54