CROWN’S RIGHT TO APPEAL

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31087, 16 June 1966, Page 1

CROWN’S RIGHT TO APPEAL

House Queries Bill In Present Form

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 15. Legislation to give the Crown the right to appeal against a sentence the Solicitor-General considered too lenient received a lukewarm reception in Parliament today. Only the Attorney-General (Mr Hanan), who introduced the bill, spoke wholeheartedly in its favour. The bill also dispenses with the provision for an accused person to make an unsworn statement at his trial, and allows a judge to comment adversely on the failure of any accused to give evidence. Sir Leslie Munro (Govt.. Waipa) said he would have been content had the right of appeal against sentence been conferred on the Attorney-General, rather than the Solicitor-General. “What worries me, is this tender anxiety to help people who are committing crimes.”

Mr D. J. Riddiford (Govt., Wellington Central) disagreed with the contention that accused persons had more privileges than they should. He said he believed the bill would be scrutinised carefully by the Statutes Revision Committee.

The Under-Secretary for Finance (Mr Muldoon) said he shared the belief that the right of appeal should rest with the Attorney-General. “1 welcome the bill, but I am not completely happy with it in its present form.” “We don’t want any political overtones in the administration of our courts,” said the Attorney-General (Mr Hanan), who introduced the bill.

“We did not want to give this right to every Crown solicitor in New Zealand. We feel this should be rarely exercised.”

Mr H. G. R. Mason (Opp., New Lynn) said that to suggest giving the right of appeal to the Attorney-General might introduce some element of party politics was to degrade the office of AttorneyGeneral. It implied the At-torney-General was not expected to feel a conscientious devotion to duty, and was expected to be influenced by matters of party politics and prejudices. The way the office of Attorney-General was used in other statutes implied that a sense of duty was expected. Rape Penalties Mr N. J. King (Opp., Waitemata) said there was great concern on what were considered light sentences in two recent cases of rape in Auckland.

Mr Hanan said he wanted

Ito hear, in the Statutes Rej vision Committee, all the i arguments for and against the I right to appeal being conferred on the Solicitor-General.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk): Who will the Statutes Revision Committee be prepared to hear? Mr Hanan: Anyone. “This bill, in part, owes its existence to public opinion," said Mr Kirk. It would be wrong in principle if the decision to appeal depended on social pressure. Mr Hanan said the House was bound to pay attention to any serious matter in the minds of people. Mr D. S. Thomson (Govt., Stratford) said he was concerned that the AttorneyGeneral, in presenting the bill had expressed his opinion about certain cases of child rape.

Mr Thomson said he believed a particular provision should not be introduced because of one particular crime. If a maximum sentence of 14 years was not enough, then the House should consider this issue. Mr Hanan said Mr Thomson overlooked the fac f that the person convicted had the right to appeal. The bill only gave a similar right to the Crown. Gang Offences Mr J. R. Harrison (Govt., Hawke’s Bay) said he felt Parliament was far more sensitive to public feeling than the Judiciary.

Some members seemed to have some doubts as to how much public opinion should be considered; some came very close to saying the public view should not be considered, said Mr Hanan. “Justice is not a cloistered virtue. She must be allowed to be subjected to the outspoken comments of the ordinary man,” he said.

Mr W. A. Fox (Opp., Miramar) asked if there was anything in the bill to deal with gangs—especially those involved in gang rapes. Mr Fox said the public had been shocked by photographs of “a gang of louts” which had appeared in a Wellington newspaper yesterday. *1 never thought it would be possible that they would be allowed to stand outside a police station with a Swastika flag which represents some of the worst attrocities ever committed in the world,” he said.

“We must try to get people to behave decently. We all know that the bully rarely ceases to be a bully until he has had a hiding himself.” “It won't be long before we could have protection rackets in this country. We have managed to avoid this sort of thing until now.” Mr Fox said he hoped that effective action would be taken against gangs. Mr Hanan said any participant in a gang rape was liable to 14 years’ imprisonment. ‘‘But the maximum sentence has never been given for this offence.”

“I feel strongly that the man who conducts Crown appeals for increased sentences should be the Attorney-Gene-ral—the man who sits in this house and who is responsible to the people—not the Solici-tor-General,” said Mr Muldoon.