"ANTI-SHOUTING "

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2931, 17 November 1916, Page 6

"ANTI-SHOUTING "

MOTION TO QUASH CONVICTIONS

CLARENDON HOTEL CASE

In the Supreme Court yesterday Mr. Justice Edwards heard two motions to quash tho convictions on informations recorded against Joan Lang, of tho Clarendon Hotel, in tho Magistrate's Court, under the War Regulations, in permitting "shouting." Mr. A. Qjfa.v, K.C., with him Mr. H. F. Evans, appeared in support of the motions, and Mr. V. R. Meredith, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Crown. The feat wo of the case was that there was involved the alteration of one of the informations, which it was alleged was done without authority, and also there was the fact that the Court records showed that "convicted and discharged" was the decision in respect of the second information, while counsel for the defence denied that the second charge had been heard at all, and that he was under the impression . that when a conviction was recorded on the first information the usual practice had been followed 1 of withdrawing the second information. Air. Gray contended that tho conviction was bad because it did not show . clearly to which of the informations, which were different, it applied; furthermore, since neither the defendant nor her counsel had consented to tho hearing of the two charges together, . the Magistrate (Mr. L. G. Reid) should not-have adjudicated on the second information. Continuing, Mr. Gray pointed l out that tho hearing bad been postponed at the request of the police for the purpose of ensuring the presence of a' man named Cameron, who was regarded as an essential -witness. "When the case did come on for hearing, Cameron, who was in Court, was not called to give evidence, although he appeared fijixious to do so, and was actually moving towards the witness-box while the Magistrate was delivering his decision. The Magistrate declined to i hear Cameron. Ho thought the Mag--' istrate should have heard Cameron, although he may have had his mind made up to convict, and was about to givo judgment. • Cameron tendered himself as a witness, and was not put forward by the defendant or her counsel. The police, as representing law and order, should have called Cameron to give evidence. He thought it was the duty of the police to have done so, and not having done so the only assumption was that the police may not have tieen i satisfied with the evidence Cameron couldl give. ■ His Honour hero remarked that he was not prepared to say that it was the duty of the police to havo called Cameron. He did not think it was incumbent on tho Magistrate to have heard what Cameron evidently wished to say, unless he was requested to do' by counsel for defendant (Air. M. Myers represented the '-defendant in tho lower Court). It was fairly plain, however, that counsel .had done so, and he (His Honour) was of opinion that the Magistrate should have heard' Cameron. It was a matter of pvoPjriety, and not a matter of law. Mr-. Gray referred to tho Magistrate's refusal of the request of defendant's counsel that tho fine should be increased to allow of an appeal to the Supreme Court. The evidence.for the prosecution rested entirely on'that of a constable, which had been flatly contradicted by defendant, who was supported in some degree by her employer. Counsel's application had been made in order that the de-i fondant might have the statutory right, of appeal to the Supremo Court, and had offered that'tho fino should be increased not merely by the customary nominal sum, but In refusing the application, tho Magistrate said his view was supported by an expression- of opinion by Judges of the Supreme Court." The only remedy that tho defendant had migtrt have been taken away by this refusal, and ho would Tiko to "nave an opinion as to whether in practice the Magistrate was justified in taking up such an attitude. ■ His Honour there was no such practice in this aistrict, nor had ho ever heard any Judge make such a pronouncement. It was possible that some such remark may havo been made by the late Sir Joshua Williams many years ago. ■ Ho had noticed tho newspaper report of the Magistrate's remark,, and bad consulted the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Chapman, who had inforraerl Km. that they had never made any such remark. His Honour, continuing,. said that tho law allowed appeals under'the Justices of the Peace ' Act only when a fine exceeds £5, hut, in his opinion, there should he appeals in_ all such cases, although perhaps it might sometimes be abused. ■ There should certainly be a right of appeal in every case where the adjudication involved something more serious than a£s fine. He instanced convictions under the Licensing Act, and pointed out }hat, in the event of a reduction vote being carried, one might involve the loss of thousands of pounds' worth of property. In the case under review the woman would lose her employment, and, Tie supposed would have a black mark against her. His Honour stated that ho tliought the Magistrate should have acceded to counsel's request, _ although lie did not in any way desire to cast a reflection on the Magistrate, and he could not say that he was wrong. It was sometimes necessary that a fine should be increased, so that justice might he done. _ Air. Meredith, in opposing the motion, maintaihe'd that it was not incumbent on the. Crown to call any witness whoso name- was on the back of tlio indiotment, but it was the-prac-tice to present tTie witness for examination' by the other side, if the other side so desired. His Honour: I think it is more ; than a practice. ' It is a Huty. _ Mr. Meredith referred to the peculiar attitude taken up by Cameron when_ giving evidence on a previous occasion, and suggested that this mayhave had something to do with the Magistrate's- refusal Tin hear him. His Honour: TTTe police secured an adjournment to enable them to call this witness, and I tliink it would have been wiser to have heard him. I should havo beard him. myself. However,, there is nothing to be said against Inspector Hendrey's conduct in not calling the witness. Mr. Meredith further stated that during the course of the proceedings Cameron spoke to Mr. Myers (defendants counsel), and was also in close touch with a party interested in the proceedings. Inspector Hendroy intimated that he would not call Cameron to give evidence; he told Mr. Myers this, so that the defendant could not claim any hardship by reason of a surprise having been sprung upon her. With respect to the contention that the Magistrate slionld have raised the fine as requested in order to allow of an appeal, Mr. Meredith held that the matter was at the discretion of the Magistrate. His Honour: It would appear that the Magistrate dealt with tho ,oase under a wrong impression as to what h e believed to be a ruling of this Court on 'the matter. Decision on the motion was reserved.