Inaugural Address

INAUGURAL ADDRESS INAUGURAL ADDRESS BY MR. JUSTICE A. R. CORNELIUS, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Pakistan AT A SEMINAR SPONSORED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE PAKISTAN LAW INSTITUTE, AT DACCA ON THE 7TH MAY 1966 It gives me great pleasure to inaugurate this important session of the Pakistan Bar Association. I am grateful to the Association and in particular to its distinguished President, Mr. A. K. Brohi, for the honour they have conferred on me. I regard this meeting as of particular importance because it follows so soon after the conferment of autonomy on the Pakistan Bar under the recently enforced Bar Councils Act. There is no question but that after the attainment of this autonomy, the legal pro fession will be under a very strong obligation to take a wider view than before of its obligations in the whole field of law. It is with reference to that obligation in the field of criminal law that I propose to place some views before this distinguished body for their serious consideration. For this purpose, I shall take advantage of certain studies and opinions that were put forward during the Commonwealth and Empire Law Conference at Sydney in August 1965, which I was privileged to attend. Through the co‑operation of a distinguished lawyer of Dacca, Mr. M. H. Khondkar, aided by a body of able and eager young lawyers, there are to be placed before this meeting of the Pakistan Bar Association summaries of almost all the papers submitted at that important Conference in ensuing sessions. I myself contributed a 'paper under the subsidiary subject "Crime and Punishment of Crime", which was included in major topic No. 2, described in the following words:‑ "Does the law serve the needs of today's community." My paper has been printed in the Pakistan Legal Decisions for the month of September 1965, P L D 1965 Jour. 172 and I expect a number of those present here have had an opportunity of reading it. Quite briefly, I gave in my paper a survey of the general procedures followed in Pakistan for the trial of offences with particular mention of certain matters which are currently the subject of discussion in the legal world at large, such as question of dimi nished responsibility. I was able to derive some satisfaction in saying that up to the present juvenile delinquency has not attained serious proportion in our country, because the strength of the family bond remains unimpaired. I was able also to say that certain offences now becoming common in western countries, as due to irresistible impulse and diminished respon sibility and other mental aberrations were not of frequent occurrence in Pakistan, and that by and large, all crime in our country could be traced to normal motivations. I was able to furnish certain figures of crime, unfortunately out of date by many years, in support of the view that as things were, the percentage of conviction obtained in cases which after Police investigation had been reported to be true, was deplorably low. In East Pakistan, in the year 1960, only 28.5 per cent. of cases which had been reported as true cases resulted in conviction before the Magistrates' Courts. In West Pakistan in the year 1957, the result was even lower, namely 22 per cent. These figures were further diminished in each case as a result of appeals. On this basis I was prompted to say that the danger of the guilty receiving more than his deserts was of no 'great significance in Pakistan, but on the other hand, it was a question for serious thought whether through excess of concern for the safety of an accused person through the processes of investigation and trial, society was being afforded the protection it deserved against this form of danger to its well‑being. I placed before the Conference certain developments in West Pakistan, which have the effect of partially restoring the function of justice to the people. I gave some details of the recently enacted Criminal Law (Amend ment) Act of West Pakistan, by which an ancient and traditional method of treatment of crime namely, trial by Jirga followed by imposition of punishment by an executive authority, was being re‑introduced. I expressed the opinion that where, as was the case in Pakistan, the proportion of success achieved in the control of crime through the Courts was so small, even in respect of cases which after Police investigation have been found to be true cases, it was natural that the authorities should turn to the indi genous system of justice for a possible solution. Referring to the disastrous effect upon the morale of the affected communities, which follows equally upon an unjust acquittal as it does upon an unjust conviction, and relying upon the fact that the truth was much more likely to emerge in a local trial than at a trial before one of the established Courts of the State, I advocated the system of communal justice also on another basis. This is that the communal Courts should be capable of dealing with an incident which has disturbed the harmony of the communal life in a manner which takes account of the rights and responsibilities of the criminal agent as well as of the direct sufferers and all other concerned. I found merit in the fact that a communal Court would be primarily concerned with setting things to rights after such a disturbance, rather than with vindi cating the majesty of the State, or even of the law. I thought the fault lay in the fact that the notion of the King's Peace might possibly have been carried to excess in our country by extending the jurisdiction of the State agencies of investigation and trial, to offences even of small importance which could be dealt with locally without any danger of the matter being exagerated and always with a view to restoration of peace so that life might go on harmoniously. The other personal view which I put forward in my paper is one that received very considerable, if entirely unwanted, publicity. It was the idea that crimes of violently anti‑social nature were not adequately punished by terms of imprisonment, even of lengthy imprison ment, but in order to produce a really deterrent effect, and so to contain the further spread of such crimes attention may be given to the possibility of introducing artificial disablement of a band or an arm, or of a leg as a fitting punishment. I was speaking, of course, of hardened criminals, who have behaved in the most violent anti‑social manner. I mentioned dacoits, habitual burglars, house breakers,, habitual cattle lifters, and I had suggested that without going to the length of amputation, it was possible in these advanced times to produce disablement by a small piece of surgery, or even by injection of a chemical which might have the effect of putting certain nerves out of action for the time being. It was not my intention that after such disablement, such persons should be left on the streets to live by begging. I suggested that they should be put into rehabilitation centres so as to enable them to earn their livelihood despite the disablement, and I had suggested further that on proof of reformation, the disability might even be removed by similar scientific process. Much of the attention attracted by this suggestion was of a highly critical nature. Many thought it was reversion to barbarism. As a matter of interest, I might say that this form of criticism was expressed most clearly by certain gentle men of the law hailing from the continent of Africa. About this phenome non, I will only say that the people of those parts undoubtedly have greater acquaintance with the incidents of savagery than most of us in the Asiatic continent can now claim to possess. I should add though that many thinking people considered that the suggestion was worthy of examination, particularly in view of the very high degree to which in the past century and half it has become clear that for the class of criminals to whom I was refer ing, imprisonment has neither punitive, nor reformative nor retributive effect. On the other hand, the universal employment of imprisonment as a punishment for all kinds of offences was in a period of rapidly growing crime imposing today an intolerable burden of expense on the State, that is, on law‑abiding and tax‑paying citizens. I may here by way of interest ask this distinguished audience whether they think that a skilled forger of writings and signatures is appropriately punished by a term of imprisonment. He could carry on his trade comfortably in confinement. Would they not prefer that by a small operation, he was deprived, either permanently or temporarily, of that fine balance of his writing hand which enabled him to produce copies so perfect as to challenge detection? I am sure all my listeners are aware of cases of pick‑pockets, who are restored to prisons at regular intervals to undergo punishment, through repeated acts of pocket picking which they can only successfully do because they retain the cunning hand which tempted them to this means of enrichment in the first instance. Would they not rather think that the correct punishment is to deprive them of that cunning, whether permanently or temporarily, without amputation of the hands, but by a surgical operation? I have perhaps dwelt too long on these aspects of my own paper, but I have been tempted to do so because I discovered that to at least one of the other three papers, which were submitted on the same subject, some of these matters have been touched upon. And I discovered too that in the same month of August 1965, when the Sydney Conference was held, there was held also at Stockholm, the Third United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crimes and the Treatment of Offenders, where too a great deal of attention was given to these subjects. I shall refer also in this talk to the fact that similar matters have been receiving consideration at the hands of lawyers and administrators in Russia and in the People's Republic of China. I shall take first, the papers read at the Sydney Conference. There was a short paper by an Indian lawyer named Jethmalani dealing with the question of the use of evidence illegally obtained for the purpose of convicting an accused person. In the British Commonwealth such evidence is generally admissible, but the case is otherwise in' the United States, where a fundamental right appears to be attracted. A paper by Mr. Skelhorn, Director of Public Prosecutions in England, dealt with the question of investigation of offences and the trial of accused persons somewhat more generally. This paper gave certain remarkable statistics regarding the growth of crime in England and Wales. It seems that the number of offences known to the Police in these countries whose population can barely be in excess of 40 millions rose from about 4,50,000 in 1955 to about 9,80,000 in 1963, an increase of about 120 per cent. Offences of violence against the person rose by 48 per cent. and offences of house breaking by 47 per cent. Of those reported to the Police the number of cases detected was only 43 per cent. too small to have a real deterrent effect. Posing the question "whether the war against crime in England and Wales is being effectively waged':, the author asserted that while the whole procedural law was rightly designed "to guard against the possibility of an innocent person being convicted", yet, in consequence, the "balance is heavily weighed at all stages in favour of the suspect or accused". He found a major obstacle to be excessive application of the rule that no person should be obliged to incriminate himself. The suggestions he put forward to restore a balance appeared to be that Courts should be permitted to draw adverse inferences against suspects and accused persons who refused to reply to questions put during interrogation, during the commitment proceedings and at the trial. He was in favour of applying the sanction, because (a) he felt that police interrogation did not always lead to far se admissions and (b) he thought that by remaining silent during the enquiry and until after the prosecution evidence had been concluded at the trial, an accused person places the prosecution at an unfair dis advantage. I am tempted to refer on these points to two principles accepted in Muslim jurisprudence which could adequately meet the case. The first is the rule that "proof is on the complainant: oath on the defendant." The second is that to an accused person who confesses his guilt leniency in punishment is to be shown. The rule of the British Common Law is that the accused person is totally free of obligation to aid in ascertainment of the truth, and it gives no value to a confession otherwise than as proof of a crime. But what I found of particular interest in this paper was the statistical proof it provided of the enormous rate of increase in crime in a highly civilized community such as that of England and Wales. By way of comparison I might mention that serious indictable offences in West Pakistan in the year 1957 amounted only to 1,16,000 as against a population figure of some 45 million. This is approximately 1/9th of the crime figures for an equivalent population in England and Wales in 1963. In East Pakistan in the year 1960, the total number of cases dealt with by the Police and by Magistrates was only about 2,21,000, against a population of over 50 million. Living as we do in conditions which are thought by Western observers to be in comparison with their own conditions somewhat uncivilized, our performance at any rate is a long way behind theirs in this branch of human activity. The most valuable and interesting paper presented on this particular subject was that of Professor Shatwell, who is Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney. The subject of the paper was "the role of the legal profession" in relation to present day conditions in the field of crime and what he had to say is of such great value that I propose to have this paper printed in an early issue of the Pakistan Legal Decisions P L D 1966 Jour. 93 so that it may be read and appreciated as widely as possible by the profession in Pakistan. Professor Shatwell conducts an Institute of Criminology at the Sydney Law School, where it is clear that some very intelligent studies are carried on. He made the shrewd point that in the English jurisdiction, "the protection of the subject against the misuse of criminal process was merely one aspect of the (historical) struggle to limit and define arbitrary executive power." He pointed out that when the Star Chamber jurisdiction was abolished. "the only legal means of controlling wrongdoers too powerful for the process of the common law" was immediately lost, and he pointed out also that while this went at the time to the advantage only of men of property, who prima facie were unlikely to resort to crime, yet the principle had been extended now to the protection even of the "known vagrant or reputed rogue" through operation of the rule of equal dispensation of justice. His analysis of the rule of law in the criminal field is so well worded that I feel justified in reproducing it here. The contents of this rule, he said, are:‑ "(a) both judge and jury discharge an arbitral function in a dispute between the Crown and the subject; (b) the substantive criminal law consists of a number of detailed rules formulated in precise terms and containing inter alia, precise definitions of a number of specific crimes; (c) save for some specified exceptional cases, the Crown must affirma tively prove the facts alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt ; (d) there is no legal means by which a person suspected of a crime can be compelled to incriminate himself; (e) civil, and in some cases criminal, liability is incurred by any officer of the law who interferes either with the personal liberty or with the property of the subject except on clearly defined legal grounds, and the urgency of investigation or strong grounds of suspicion are not in themselves a legal justification for any such in terference." He proceeded to consider whether these valuable principles which have become deeply rooted in the life of the people might not have gathered round them "an emotional aura which has the negative effect of precluding critical appraisal and modification in light of changing needs." As had been observed by Mr. Skelhorn in his paper, and also touched upon by myself in my paper. he found that the notion of providing additional protection to the accused in criminal cases had become a sort of "holy cow amongst the various branches of law." He spoke of the high responsibility which the legal profession carries in respect of law‑making in general. An average lawyer thought that his function was exhausted if he exercised vigilance and skill to see that the rule of law was maintained through all phases of a criminal matter, when it came before the Court. That, in his opinion, was not sufficient. The true role of the lawyer was wider. Lawyers are directly engaged in imposing legal restrictions on the processes of investigation and trial and of the sanctions following conviction and this engagement carried an obligation on the profession as such to take a direct interest in all legislation covering the whole field. Here he used words of great import to the full responsibility of the legal quotation. He said "Since all legal sanctions carry with them a professional imprimatur, i. e., a warranty by professional opinion of their fitness for the purpose for which they are employed, the whole problem of criminal punishment falls properly within the field of professional appraisal." The learned author then proceeded to consider the problem of criminal investigation as a whole. He traced the growth of crime to the increase of urban populations which had not been accompanied by corresponding elaboration in the rules of investigation. From the time when a Police force had first been introduced in London, and had met with intense and wide‑spread opposition, as introducing police‑rule, and curtailing traditional liberties, there had been in existence an attitude of distrust in the Police which is kept alive by the individual cases of serious misconduct by Police officers that come to light from time to time. In consequence, the Police powers in regard to investigation remain strictly limited by law. Professor Shatwell acutely observes that "the system only works with the aid of a good deal of social hypocrisy, that it is extremely unfair to conscientious police officers, and that it gives a legal immunity to certain types of criminals." With particular reference to great cities such as London and New York, he finds it to be "an unfortunate fact that at the present day criminal sub‑cultures invariably exist in densely populated areas, irrespective of the general level of community prosperity." He analyses them into two classes. The first is that of "the socially inadequate personalities" who regularly undergo conviction for minor offences. The second is by far more dangerous and Professor Shatwell does not spare his words in depicting their special quality. They are a hard core of tough and skilful criminals who enjoy great success in criminal enterprises. Groups of such persons exist in all quarters of every big city. They become known to each other as easily "as do more reputable businessmen" and thus cooperation in criminal enterprises is ensured. Those with natural qualities of leadership and organisational and executive skill come to the fore, and in consequence, more permanent forms of criminal organizations appear, which if not checked early, "pass largely beyond the control of the instruments of law" for two reasons. Firstly, the leaders are able to avoid direct participation in crime. Secondly, they have so much wealth at their disposal that they are able to influence and corrupt all the agencies of the administration, and make friends for themselves in political, social, legal and press circles. He concluded this survey on a sombre note when he said that in many great cities all over the world, the patterns of criminal organization are already much more advanced than is commonly realized." He felt that the legal profession as a whole tends to ignore these menacing developments and to insist rather ' upon uniform maintenance of existing restraints on police facilities for investigation. Because the legal profession enjoys considerable prestige and is regarded by the public as expert in all branches of the law, "the effect of the professional attitude is to confer expert approval upon s general public sentiment containing threads of hostility and prejudice against the police." The solution which he advocates is not abandonment of the existing rules, but "a critical reappraisal in terms of an increased interest in the criminal law at the highest professional level." Stressing. the difficulties which the Police face in bringing organised criminals to justice and in particular, deploring the fact that "a surprisingly large number of genuine confessions of guilt" obtained by skilful and persistent questioning are not usable as evidence, he pointed to the dilemma in which the police is placed by the fact, that on the other hand, the community demands that all such criminals should be duly arrested and dealt with. Next, Professor Shatwell dealt with penal sanctions obtainable under the present law, and emphasised that the profession could not be absolved from responsibility for examining this aspect of crime control, in a critical manner. There was, in his opinion, much confused thinking as to the causes of criminal behaviour on account of "a spate of theories by psychiatrists and sociologists." On the other hand, it was well‑known as a result of 150 years of experience that imprisonment besides being generally productive of further and serious deterioration of personality, did not generally operate as a deterrent to the further pursuit of crime. His paper, he said, attempted to examine "two major dilemmas with which we are faced today." Firstly, the protection of the individual against the misuse of criminal process had to be balanced against the duty of protecting society against crime. Secondly, society nowadays preserves the criminal from the older penalties of banishment or death, but only succeeds in returning him to society "with the increased criminal skills and criminal associates, and the deterioration of personality, which are the common effects of imprisonment." As you may well imagine, it is gratifying to me personally to find support from so intelligent. and capable source for a view which I had attempted in my small way to put forward in my paper. There is no denying the fact that a prison for long‑term prisoners, convicted of serious offences against person and property becomes inevitably a den of violence and of many vices, of which homosexuality is probably one of the least. The prison staff is always small compared with the number of convicts they supervise, and consequently when trouble breaks out they prefer to turn a blind eye to it lest they themselves should be involved. Much of the hard work is entrusted to convict‑warders, whose tendency to cover up the excesses of their wards, often for personal gain is well‑known. It is only on a rare occasion when the disturbance is serious enough to pose a threat to the whole administration of the prison, that any effective interference can be expected. The opposite extreme, namely, of pampering these enemies of society, is also found. A gentleman by the name of Abdul Hakim Khan, presently an officer in the Central Ministry of . Law has been good enough to send me a report of what he saw in a number of foreign countries he visited on a Human Rights Fellowship. He had occasion to visit a prison in England and this is the opinion that he formed:‑ "To complete the picture the British Council arranged a visit to the Blundstone Prison for long sentences; of course my visit was short and I am only left to envy the luxury in which the incorrigible prisoners are going to find themselves for years in the hope of reformation, but this much practical advantage that they will not be a nuisance to the society as long as they are in the premises apparently so hospitable." That speaks of enormous expense, out of the tax‑payers' pocket, of which an intelligent citizenry could justifiably ask to be relieved, if alternative methods of deterrent punishment, such as‑ disablement followed by rehabilitation which I had‑suggested, can be found. But it is more important for my purpose today to express my full support to Professor Shatwell's view of the large responsibility that the legal profession carries in relation to the criminal law in general to ensure that its essentials are adapted to the proper requirements of modern conditions in all respects. In my view, our lawyers in Pakistan need to be made aware of the importance of realizing that it is not enough for them to make successful careers by being successful agents for the operation of the existing systems, for these need to be modified with the changing times. That the incidence of crime is growing steadily is a strong argument for critical appraisal of the systems in force. Our conditions happily are far more simple than those with which the European countries are required to deal. Urbanization has commenced, industrialization is in progress and there is also 'much admixture of populations, for example, through refugee movement. These factors invariably lead to an increase in crime. I regret to find that the attention we are paying to these matters is at an extremely low level. When I see how much is being done in other countries of the world to examine the facts of this huge problem and to devise means of coping with it, I feel tempted to say that we in Pakistan still have to wake up from our sleep. I have mentioned that in August 1965, the United Nations held at Stockholm their Third Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. The working papers of this Congress have kindly been sent to me from Geneva by the Chief of the Social Defence Section in the United Nations Secretariat. Let me give you a few facts appearing from these papers. The opening address emphasised the extent to which criminality impedes the full mobilization of human resources towards development. The Economic and Social Council adopted a few years ago a resolution to the effect that "prevention of juvenile delinquency and adult criminality and the campaign to stamp out crime should be undertaken as part of comprehensive economic and social development plans." Certain figures of the cost of dealing with crime have been given, which will be of interest. In the State of New York alone, the cost of controlling crime now amounts to about 700 million dollars a year. That should sufficiently indicate the magnitude of the problem in the United States, for in the United Kingdom, the cost of prevention of crime .and the treatment of offenders is about 100 million pounds, say 300 million dollars, a year. It is not surprising that the President of the United States in the year 1965 sent a special message to Congress recognising crime as a national problem and setting out a plan for checking its growth. In Pakistan, a larger provision was made for social defence in the year 1957‑58 than was made for education. The Council of Europe has set up a European Committee on Crime Problems, indicating how seriously the matter is regarded there. The working papers for this Congress were six in number under the following headings:‑ (1) Social Forces and the Prevention of Criminality. (2) Social change and Criminality. (3) Community Preventive Action. (4) Special Preventive and treatment measures for young adults. (5) Probation and other non‑institutional measures, and (6) Measures to combat recidivism meaning reversion to crime after conviction. These papers provide valuable reading for any interested person and I would be glad to make them available for study by groups of lawyers, if desired. It was news to me to learn from these papers that the Government of India has included crime preventive action in their five‑year plans from 1951 onwards through an office known as the Central Bureau of Correctional Services, under the Ministry of Home Affairs. The comprehensive programme laid down for the Bureau covers the whole field of social defence against crime as well as matters such as care of children, of women in moral danger and of vagrants. Among other activities, the Bureau maintains liaison with international organizations. The subjects dealt with in these papers go to the very roots of the question of crime. In the first paper, I find valuable studies of subjects such as public participation in crime prevention, the importance of the family in that regard, the value of education and of job opportunities: Many countries are mentioned where researches are being carried on in all these fields. The importance of juvenile delinquency has in particular received intensive examination in a great many countries among which I regret to find that Pakistan is not included. It appears that seminars on this subject have been continuously held under the auspices of the United, Nations for many years, of which we here in Pakistan appear to have remained in ignorance. As an indication of the volume of work that has been done in some countries, I mention here facts and figures given regarding Japan. Japan, has a Juvenile Act under which a Central Council has been set up at the Prime Minister's office to deal with problems relating to juveniles, with subordinate councils at State, city, town and village level. Volunteer groups have been set up to join in this work of which there are more than 7,000 child welfare groups with some 60,000 members, over 5,000 child guidance groups with 50,000 members, over 9,000 mothers' clubs with over 5,00,000 members, some 22,OOQ groups in regional women's organizations with about 7,00,000 members, and finally some 40,000 parent‑teacher groups with about 15 million members. In addition, there are specialised organizations some of which are the Youth Aid and Guidance Committees the Youth Departments of the Crime Prevention Associations, and the School and Police Liaison Councils. In many countries the Police services directly engage in the prevention of juvenile delinquency. In the State of New York there is a Police Athletic League now in existence for many years, which offers "juveniles and youth a variety of recreational services in special centres and in play streets" and which has recently developed a new programme using a mobile staff, provided with athletic equipment who set up games on the spot for children from the neighbourhood. In New York, the Police also specially organize youth councils to get young persons of the street into some kind of constructive activity. Such beneficent activities by the Police force are found in many other countries that are named in the paper. This work is quite apart from the other social services working for amelioration of living conditions, to minimise social handicaps and thus discourage resort to crime. Social changes such as those consequent on refugee movement besides, those brought about by industrialization and urbanization have been the subject of study in the United Nations since 1953, and in recent years there have been such social defence meetings in 1960, 1963 and thrice in 1964, of which here in Pakistan we seem to have heard nothing. Equally important work is being done all over the world in the fields covered by the other working papers, which seems to have passed unnoticed in our country. I think all of you will agree with me that matters cannot be allowed to remain so any longer, We here are as much concerned as any other people to keep our society, which is still in large measure traditionally oriented, free to the greatest extent possible, from the disease of crime. We have in our midst a sufficient number of responsible persons who will be prepared to give of their time and experience to the study and treatment of this most serious problem. In this development which must come, the legal profession must take a leading part. The time has gone by when under foreign rule the task of organising the major agencies such as the Police, the Courts and the prisons and other punitive institutions was left to be designed and undertaken by our foreign rulers. At that time, the lawyers had no other function but to assist in the operation of these agencies in relation to individuals through professional engagements on behalf of the accused person or Government. Now, being a principal part of the great machinery of law enforcement, they have a much larger measure of responsibility, as members of an independent nation, to assist in strengthening and adapting .these agencies to meet the demands by rising populations and the onset of moderni zation. I will close my address by making brief reference to certain information regarding "the war against crime" as it is practised in Soviet Russia and in People's China. I draw this information from two valuable articles in the summer journal of the International Commission of Jurists. In Russia the Marxist theory of crime is mainly that it is the direct result of exploitation of one class by another. That it continues to exist after the elimination of classes is explained as the result of the continuing influence of survivals from the past upon the social consciousness. Besides this general and all‑pervading cause, they also recognise the existence of accidental causes, such as alcoholism and social strains such as those resulting from inadequate housing, etc. The Soviet theory of crime envisages. its total disappearance when the ideal state of communism will have been achieved. One cannot deny a measure of admiration to such optimism, quixotic though it may seem. It appears that in the later years of the regime of Stalin, strong measures for the suppression of crime had been taken. When he was succeeded by Khrushchev a new attitude appears to have been adopted, namely, that the time had come when the disappearance of crime could be anticipated. Accordingly, in 1960; a new Criminal Code was introduced which provided for generally humanistic treatment of criminals except for the most serious crimes. It was soon found, however, that the optimism built into this Code was not well‑founded and very soon the death penalty was extended to many other broad categories of offences: The Soviet system, I learn with interest, rests to a great extent on the principle of extending the exercise of judicial functions to all citizens, and thus they have people's Courts and comradely Courts, etc,, for dealing with crime below a certain level. The people's Courts eagerly accepted the lenient provisions of the 1960 Cod‑e, and came in for a measure of blame. Although their attitude may seem naive, in relation to actual conditions, yet speaking for myself, I support them in emphasising measures of social influence as being superior to mere penalties for achieving the final elimination of crime. Thus, for instance, merit cannot be denied to the principle that through social influence measures, the conscience of the offender is reached, and by bringing home to him the full moral values and providing him with a governing principle for his future conduct, he may be successfully dissuaded from committing further offences. Undoubtedly, in a vigorously managed society such as that found in a Communist country, there is bettor scope for these humanistic principles to find sympathetic application, than they might in a non‑Communist or totally Capitalistic society. If these principles are not working out as favourably as the ruling party expected, from time to time that must not in my view detract from their fundamental rightness. In China what appears from the article I have mentioned is that since 1957, it is being felt that the legal and judicial system previously established was in need of elaboration. Consequently, attention is now being given to the formulation of laws and codes on all necessary matters. The Courts which were left somewhat devoid of trained personnel in the early years following the Revolution, are now working more methodically and with better staffs so that the claim can be made that they are independent, although it seems they must act in accordance with strict ideology and policy as laid down by the party. A major movement in the dispensation of justice has been described as the Mass Line. It apparently divides into three main parts. The first is to bring the Courts directly to, the people for which reason judicial procedures have been simplified and justice is dispensed on the spot. This is to be taken literally so that it means investigation on the spot, trial on the spot, and sentence on the spot. Trials are to be preceded by some form of mediation, which is ;a second aspect of Mass Line operation. The effort here is to promote voluntary observance of law and social discipline, so as to encourage internal solidarity and communal peace. The third 'feature of the Mass Line is the most remarkable, namely, the association of judicial personnel with productive labour. Presiding officers and Judges from time to time are sent down to communes to live and labour with the masses, .to take a direct part in production. This is thought to help them to shed their bourgeois prejudices and to strengthen their solidarity with the common people. But what I found most interesting in this article was that following the split between Soviet Russia and People's China, legal and judicial circles in China have begun to take interest in legal systems other than that of the Soviet Union, prominent among these being their own traditional systems. Being a country with a long and honourable history of civilization, the men of law are engaging in the re‑discovery of the indigenous legal trends of China, for adaptation to modern conditions. This is described as "critical inheritance of the cultural legacy" and certainly should be productive of valuable results, for China is not in the same condition as a country such as Russia, which has to base all its institutions on the experience of the nations in the rest of Europe. I am grateful to my audience for their presence and attention. I am aware that probably I have taken up more of their time than they expected to give. I trust however that they will appreciate that it is of importance to them and to the legal community of Pakistan at large that they should realize how far behind the advanced countries we are in respect of the studies of which I have been speaking. The effort to make up the leeway can and must be made. In that effort, the legal profession must take its proper place in the forefront.