What exactly does Clause 2 mean?

"Where the only witness to the facts of the case called by the defence is the person charged he shall be called as a witness immediately after the close of the evidence for the prosecution."

Supposing they had medical testimony to produce and if he is the only witness called, of course he must be produced at the end of the case for the prosecution.

I know what it means.

I congratulate you.

It means that it is to be done before counsel for the accused makes a speech.

What is the object of that?

I do not know that. I believe it is the practice in England, whether that is a recommendation or not. It gives the counsel for the accused the right to reply.

He need not exercise that right.

It is often considered an advantage.

Where is the right of reply taken away from the Crown?

I think in the next section you will find something to that effect. I would suggest to the Minister to leave out of clause 2 the words "to the facts of the case."

I would look into that point between this and the Report Stage.

I could understand his getting the option whether he will be called immediately or afterwards, but why should you compel him?

I understand that the section is an exact copy of a section in the British Act.

Probably it is explained by what Senator Brown has said. I do not want unduly to criticise it, because it may have some very good reasons, but I should think it ought to be left as an option to the unfortunate man himself to determine whether he should give evidence before or after counsel's speech.

This is to prevent two speeches. If the speech comes first and then he is called, he has a right to a second speech.

Is not that extremely hard? If there is more than one witness he can have two speeches, but if there is only himself he can have only one. Does it mean that if he is the only witness called in his own defence his counsel can only speak once, whereas if he calls a doctor he could have two speeches? Does it mean that?

I do not think so, having regard to Section 3.

I think it is worth while looking into it.

Very good.

With reference to Clause 5, I would like to ask the Minister if the words "criminal proceedings" include prosecutions under the Licensing Acts. Sub-clause 1 (f) says: "a person charged and called as witness in pursuance of this Act." He is not obliged, if he is asked, and if asked he shall not be required to answer any question as to whether he has been convicted or charged with any offence other than that with which he is then charged. It is to prevent evidence of that character of previous convictions given against him. Clause 5 says: "This Act shall apply to criminal proceedings, etc." Under the Licensing Acts there are what are really criminal proceedings. A licensed person, when charged with an offence, is liable to a fine of up to, I think, £20, and liable to imprisonment in default of payment. Is it intended that this Act shall apply to proceedings under any prosecution under the Licensing Acts?

It seems to me rather unfair that a licensed person who is a publican and who is not supposed to be a greater sinner than anyone else, in going into the witness box, could be asked whether he was not convicted of some offence under the Licensing Acts within the last six months. I do not think that is fair to the publican, and I think criminal proceedings ought to include prosecutions under the Licensing Acts. I suggest to the Minister that he might introduce another sub-section which would read like this: "Section 1 (f) of this Act shall apply to a person charged and called under the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1900, or any amending Acts."

Why is your conscience pricking you so much as to the offending publican? What about the motor driver?

I am not sure the motor driver would be under this.

I am not, either, and I do not think you should be protecting the one and not the other. So far as criminal prosecutions are concerned, the prosecution against the publican seems to stand in the same position as the prosecution against the driver of a motor car or a hackney car or anyone else, who is subject to imprisonment for certain offences. That applies to a man, for instance, who sells adulterated milk.

They are provided for under the Food Acts.

Is it provided for in the case of motor drivers?

No.

I think you are opening up a very big question.

It will be opened under the construction of this Act sometime.

Would not a better way be to define criminal proceedings?

It would. Perhaps the Minister would leave it over for Report.

It was not intended to include licensing prosecutions. When the Senator raised the point my first inclination was to see whether it would not be advisable to include a sub-section especially excepting them. A bigger question seems to be raised, however, and a definition of criminal proceedings may be better.

Also it would arise not only under the Licensing Acts but under the Revenue Act, illicit distillation and so on. If you have to interfere with this clause at all it would have to be by a definition of criminal proceedings.