| The system of criminal prosecution in the nineteenth century differed from that of today in a number of ways, but perhaps the most noticeable, for the lay person at least, was that the majority of prosecutions were not undertaken by the police, but by private individuals, normally the victims of the case in hand. Police forces, as such, hardly existed before the 1830's and until the 1856 County and Borough Police Act many parts of England and Wales had no system of regular policing except unpaid parish constables. Even where there was a proper police force most prosecutions were still initiated by private citizens. In 1885 the legal historian F.W. Maitland wrote, 'To speak of the English system as one of PRIVATE prosecutions is misleading. It is we who have PUBLIC prosecutions for any one of the public may prosecute; abroad they have STATE prosecutions or OFFICIAL prosecutions." Usually the victim of the crime would apprehend the suspect, often with the aid of companions or a police constable. The accused would be taken before the local magistrate and this latter would decide whether or not there was, in fact, a case to answer. It was now up to the magistrate to decide what to do. Depending upon his estimate of the seriousness of the charge, he had three main options. 1. He could discharge the accused if he believed that there was no case to answer. 2. If the case was a minor one he could have the offence summarily tried before two magistrates at Petty Sessions. This would be a speedy process and involve no jury. 3. A more serious offence, that is, an indictable offence, would have to be tried either before a judge at the Assizes or a bench of magistrates at Quarter Sessions. In either case the trial would take place before a jury or, strictly speaking, a petty jury. The issue of summary and indicatable offences is obviously one of some importance and complexity. Summary offences were ones that could be tried by magistrates, sitting alone, without a jury. They included common assault, breaches of the peace, minor riots, drunkenness, vagrancy and a host of licensing and bylaw infringements. Poaching was also a summary offence, except for the case of armed night-poaching. Magistrates' powers to try summary offences were considerably extended in the nineteenth century. It is important to appreciate this fact when comparing crime statistics for indictable offences over a period of time. The Juvenile Offenders Act of 1847 permitted summary trial for simple larceny if the offender was under 14. In 1855 the Criminal Justice Act extended summary trial, as an option, to all accused of larceny if the amount was less than five shillings. An indictable offence was one where the accused had to be tried on a Bill of Indictment at the Assizes or Quarter Sessions. The jury would determine the verdict and the judge or bench would pass sentence. In general the Assizes dealt with more serious offences than did the Quarter Sessions. An Act of 1842 codified what was, largely, existing practice. Capital offences and those where a first conviction would mean life transportation were dealt with at Assizes, as were certain specified offences like blasphemy, forgery and bigamy. Quarter Sessions tried the remainder of indictable offences. In practice this meant that murder, homicide, burglary, robbery with violence, wounding and rape came up at the Assizes, whilst Quarter Sessions dealt with larceny, housebreaking, assault, robbery without violence and fraud. If the magistrate decided that there was a case to answer, the accused would be committed for trial, either to the Petty Sessions or, on a Bill of Indictment, to Assizes or Quarter Sessions. Prisoners could be either remanded or bailed, although for many it would have to be the former since lack of means was often the cause of the offence and money for bail would be unobtainable. At each stage of a prosecution there was provision made for the action to be dropped when a decision of 'No True Bill' was arrived at. Thus at the beginning of either Assizes or Quarter Sessions the Bill of Indictment went before a Grand Jury which decided whether the case had enough substance to merit a hearing in court. During the trial neither prosecutor nor defendant were entitled to any form of legal aid. This meant that the average prisoner would be denied access to any form of counsel because of the expense. Whichever plea was entered, 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty', evidence of the crime was heard and, in direct contrast to modern practice, evidence of previous convictions was given before sentence was passed. |
||