INFERIOR COURTS PROCEDURE BILL.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 656, 5 November 1909, Page 5

INFERIOR COURTS PROCEDURE BILL.

';OUTLINE OF THE MEASURE. " The Inferior Courts Procedure Bill, which was read a first time in. the Legislative Council .yesterday, is .practically, the same as,'the Bill-'- which was introduced: last year, but lapsed. The memorandum attached to the'Bill by the Government's; Law Officer states that it repeals Section 76 of the Judicature Act, 1908 (remov.il of' technical' defects), , and certain similar provisions in the Justices of the Peace. Act, 1308, and - substitutes, more extensive: provisions tor the purpose of preventing the proceedings of inferior Courts froin being invalidated by technical and formal errors. The repealed provisions have proved to.be ineffective. See, for example, in i-e. White, 26 N.Z.LB. 1268. ' /' ~u ■■:■<; ■ '■ ■- ■ > -: The following are ■ the chief provisions of the Bin-.- -.. r ■•;.'• . ,-.-■;, .. (1.) Section 3 provides in effect that.no defect or enor can be-raised'as an objection, even though, it. goes to the. jurisdiction of the Court, unless the. objection is made at the earliest! .possible" moment 'in* the proceedings. At present,' l 'no error which- relates to' the jurisdiction of'tho Court can be waived by the parties, if the error appears on the face of the proceedings. Consequently,'as the law now [stands, a defendant in the' Magistrate's Court could defend - the case , on the", merits-.even to the Court of Appeal, and after being defeated on the merits, fall back oh a ; verbal-error in the plaint note by which;the were initiated, nor. is there any authority by whioh such an error could be amended. . (2.) Section i provides that' the judgments and convictions and other process of , inferior Courts need not show on the face of them the jurisdiction or authority" on which they aro based. .Jurisdiction is to be presumed until its absence is proved. ! The existing rule is a relic of old law for which thero is now/no sufficient .reason. "•'.'''. - : , (3.) Section 8 mates a similar provision with, respect to certain other formal requisites of the written-, process of, inferior Courts. ■ .-,■..; (4.) Section 6 abolishes the old,rule'that a conviction V/y an inferior Court must: set out in full detail every constituent of the dffeuce. Under the. Bill' any description, is -sufficient which identifies the offence. "" ' ;'. "■, . • (5.) Section' 7 abolishes the rule.that if a'conviction is bad in any part it is bad altogether .. (6;)' Section , 8 re-enacts Section .'76; of tho Judicature Act,. 1908; (removal of technical defects), with amendments required to make it effective,. - , : ' . . (7.) Section 9 provides that' a conviction or order shall not bo wholly bad becansoit relates to two offences or two matters instead of one 'Die Supremo Court may strike * out one of the offences or matters and let*the other stand. (8.) Section 10 ! makes provision for the case of two closely-related offences and a mistaken conviction for'.one.!of these instead of for the 'other..-.' ■'■'.':■.; '■:-.'■ ,■•■■■ ■' ■-.-: ■.■.:•-.■- (9.) Section 12 abolishes the existing appeal 1 fejUEag uadax the justices, oi tii

Peace Act. • This is a wholly unnecessary duplication of remedies, the original purpose of which (if any)' no longer exists. The true scope and meaning of the provisions repealed has proved to be a matter of some uncertainty and difficulty, and all necessary, appeals are otherwise sufficiently provided'for.-