Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 25.pdf/278

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

House of Lords Criminal Appeal go forward with the proceedings.4 In the meantime what was to be done with the defendants whose conviction the Court had just pronounced wrongful? Were they kept in prison, held to bail, or allowed to go at large? Without any delay the Court announced its decision that the defendants were to be released, holding that after having declared the defendants to be uncon victed persons, the Court had no power to hold them to bail and still less to keep them imprisoned.6 There were no rules of the House of Lords regarding criminal appeals, so that after obtaining the Attorney Gen eral's certificate the Director of Public Prosecutions appeared before the Law Lords to take their direction as to the procedure to be adopted. The Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of all the judges, announced as the decision of the Court: "We will say December 15th next for the hearing. In regard to the papers, I imagine what we want is the materials which were before the Court of Criminal Appeal, and we need not put the parties to the expense and trouble of printing." 6

259

On December 1oth the case was argued and without any adjournment the opinion of the Court was pronounced and its judgment entered. The order of the Court of Criminal Appeal was reversed and the case remitted back to that Court "to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this judgment." That Court thereupon (December 19th) directed that the conviction be restored, and entered an order that the record be amended in accordance with the decision of the House of Lords and ordered a warrant to issue for one of the defendants who had not surrendered.7 This case settled the question of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in criminal appeals. Up to this time there had been two views. The first, that the object of conferring this juris diction was only to enable the highest tribunal to give an opinion on the prac tice for guidance in future cases and its opinion was not to affect the con viction or acquittal of the particular person charged. The other was that the House of Lords could not only pronounce a decision of law, but also restore or set aside a conviction.8 To an American mind accustomed to the delays and technicalities of crimi nal appeals the course of this English case is enlightening. Within ninety days of the commission of the acts com plained of, the defendants were put upon their trial. Within sixty days of the trial two appeals had been heard and decided.9 Simplicity, directness and

  • Sect. 1, Sub-section 6 of the Criminal Appeal

Act, 1907: "If in any case the director of public prosecutions or the prosecutor or defendant obtains the certificate of the Attorney General that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal involved a point of law of exceptional public importance, and that it is desirable in the public interest that a further appeal should be brought, he may appeal from that decision to the House of Lords, to subject thereto the determination by the Court of Criminal Appeal of any appeal or other matter which it has power to determine shall be final, and no appeal shall lie from that court to any other of appeal; (8) certificate of Scrutton, J., and (9) court." transcript of the judgment of the Court of Criminal sBall. 5 Cr. App. R. 238, 254. • (1911) A. C. at 62. The following is the list of Appeal. All were typewritten except the first. 7 (1911) A. C, at 76; See also same case. 6 Cr. documents filed and deemed sufficient in these appeals: — (1) Printed petition of appeal to the App. R. 31. 8 (1911) A. Cat 69. House of Lords, embodying the order appealed from, and the certificate of the Attorney-General; (2) 0 Since the Barnes case a second criminal appeal copy of depositions; (3) copy of exhibits; (4) list has been before the House of Lords. Leach v. Rex. of exhibits; (5) the indictments; (6) transcript of (1912) A. C. 305, where the defendant was tried proceedings, incuding the evidence and the argu and sentenced November 25, 1911. Case was ment at the trial before Scrutton J.; (7) notice heard and decided in the Court of Criminal Appeal