Report of the Royal Commission on the care and control of the feeble-minded, Volume VIII.

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded.
Date:
1908
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Report of the Royal Commission on the care and control of the feeble-minded, Volume VIII. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    306/552 (page 274)
    MEi^TALLY DEFECTIVE PERSONS AND THE LUNACY COMMISSION. Chapter XXXVIII. The Chancery Jurisdiction and the Lunacy Commission- Nature of work done by the Judge and Masters in Lunacy—coiitd. Recommend.ation VIII. Suggestions as to constituting one Central Authority. Opinion of the Judges and Officers of the Chancery Division. Kokowicli, .1., Vol, IV., p. 334. Kokewioh, .1., Vol. IV., 33.528-33.542 Kokcwich, J., Vol. IV., 33556-33502, from mental defect as defined in Recommendation IV., and is incapable of the responsible control of liimself and his affairs, might be disposed of by one of the legal Commissioners in Lunacy, assisted, if necessary, by a medical Commissioner, while all opposed cases were disposed of by a judge of the High Court with or without a jury according, as at present, to the desire of the party affected. In the former cases the ancient right to traverse, under that or some other name or form, might be preserved as a protection to the party affected in the improbable case of the finding being wrong, while in the latter case, in which there would have been a full trial, it might be abolished. With regard to supersedeas, the consideration of this question depends almost entirely upon medical opinions as to whether the party affected has recovered or not, great weight being attached to the Visitor’s Report. The jurisdiction might be exercised as well by the Chancery Division as by the present authority in lunacy. 797. As to present practice. The masters in lunacy have, under the Lunacy Acts of 1890 and 1891, full power to deal with cases under the heads B and C, there being a right of appeal from their orders to a Lord Justice. Cases under A are dealt with by a Lord Justice only, except the holding of the inquiry, the practice as to which has been already explained. For reasons before appearing there seems to be no sufficient ground for retaining cases for ordering an inquiry, or cases of supersedeas, to be dealt with by a Lord Justice only. Orders under D are at present made by a Lord Justice only and form the greater part of the business done by the Lords Justices. Whatever other changes may be made, it is suggested that a transfer of these cases (D) to the Chancery Division would simplify the procedure in relation to trusts and vesting orders, the present dual jurisdiction being a source of confusion and perplexity in the minds of practi- tioners. There are also some cases of administration {e.g., dealing with property under the Settled Land Acts or the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts) in which orders have to be made both in Chancery and in lunacy, and therefore can only be made by a Lord Justice acting for this purpose as a Judge of the Chancery Division. A transfer of the lunacy jurisdiction to the Chancery Division would simplify these. 798. A considerable body of evidence bearing upon this proposal was afforded us by judges and officers of the Chancery Division. The Right Hon. Sir Arthur Kekewich, the senior judge of that division, laid a Statement before us, which had been submitted to and had received the ap- proval of all the judges of the division. We extract the following passage which bears directly upon the question under consideration. “ It has been proposed that the jurisdiction in lunacy now exercised by the Lords Justices with the assistance of two masters in lunacy and a staff of clerks shall be transferred to the Chancery Division and be exercised by the judges of that Division and their masters. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the transaction of business in lunacy to express an opinion whether such transfer would be of advantage, but I am clearly of opinion that the business could properly be done by the judges and masters of the Chancery Division, all of whom are necessarily familiar with business of an analogous character. I do not think that the judges would have any difficulty in finding time and con- venient opportunities for the disposal of such part of the business as would properly come before them, and although I cannot speak so certainly about the masters, I believe that they also could undertake their part. . . . The Chancery business is distributed among six judges, working in groups of two each, with four masters attached to each group and I think that if the lunacy business were transferred it ought to be distributed in like manner.” Sir Arthur Kekewich explained to us that he assumed that it was not pro- posed to transfer the duty of holding inquisitions, which the Chancery judges could not undertake, but he agreed that if the judges of that Division were constituted the judge in lunacy there would not be the slightest difficulty in any one of them ordering an issue to be tried before a judge of the King’s Bench Division or an ordinary inquiry to be held before a Lunacy Commissioner. Nor could medical visits be taken in hand by the Division, but there would be no difficulty in giving directions to or obtaining advice from the Lunacy Com- missioners or whoever might have the charge of the patient or the direction of the committee of his person.