Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ANTI-SHOUTING

CLARENDON HOTEL CASE CONVICTIONS' QUASHED In the Supremo Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Edwards gave his decision on the application of Joan Lang, barmaid of, the Clarendon Hotel, for an order quashing two convictions against her upon charges of breaches of the "antishouting" regulations. ..'-It .had. been admitted by counsel, on behalf of the police, that the second of the two convictions could not he upheld in the form in which it had been drawn up, but His Honour came to the conclusion that neither conviction was valid, each of'.them being void, on tho ground-of uncertainty as to what offence is referred to. If the defendant had been prosecuted again for either of the. two alleged-oiftfncesj she could not have sustained a plea of autrefois convict by putting in either of the convictions. The Court had been asked to amend the convictions so as to supply the deficiencies. It had been arged on behalf of the applicant (Joan Lang) that there was not sufficient material heforo tho Court to "enable the Court to do so, but His Honour did not consider it necessary to decide that question. There were two other reasons which influenced the Court in the direcf tion of declining to exercise its powers of amendment under the Inferior Courts Procedure Act,.; 1909. Tho first was the fact that Cameron, tho-person alleged to have been "treated/' had not been allowed by the Magistrate to give evidence, though he had offered himself as a witness at the time, when the Magistrate was commencing to give his judgment. Tho second was that the Magistrate had acted upon a mistaken assumption as to the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the propriety of increasing tho penalty at the request of. tho defendant in order to allow a general appeal to be taken to the Supreme Court. His Honour quashed both convictions. Some Point "of" the Judgment, ■With respect to the witness Cameron, who was to havo been called for the prosecution, and was not palled, and who desired to give evidence, His Honour in the course of his judgment said: "Taking the evidence for tho prosecution to be tnio, two separate offences were committeed by the plaintiff Which were so identical in* every circumstance except time that they can bo distinguished only by the hours" of their occurence. This, however, creates no difficulty. A policeman who voluntarily, or in pursuance of orders from his ■ superior officers, sets out to .detect of-* fenders in this manner, accompanied always by tho same witness, who is not above the temptation to obtain free alcoholic stimulants at the expense, of his own self-respect (if ho ever had any),-need never be at. a.kiss for evidence of the precise' time"when the offence takes place All that ho has to do js a-.noto..of. i thq.time, l in each case 1 , fri his notebook;-:'Tho time;6f. each alleged offence was actually proved in the present base. It is only in such cases that it can.be necessary to prove the precise time and to show it on the face of the conviction with particularity.' In my opinion, therefore, neither of, the convictions before mo pan bo sunported as it at present stands." His Honour went on tp refer to the Magistrate's refusal to hear the witness Cameron when the latter came forward and disclosed his identity, when the Magistrate had begun to deliver his judgment. He said: "In my opinion the Magistrate would have.acted more wisely if he had caused Cameron to bo sworn and had taken his evidence, leaving it open both to Mr. Myers and to the Inspector of Police to oross-examine him. Theroqan be no doubt that the Magistrate had the'power to take this course, which has been frequently adopted by Judges of this Court in tho strictest analagous case of the failure of the prosecuting counsel to call upon a trial in tho Supreme Court a witness whose name is on the back of the indictment, but who has not been called by counsel for the prosecution. ... I do not make' these remarks as in any way reflecting on the exercise by the Magistrate of his discretion in this matter, I make them because I am myself called upon to exercise my discretion as to whether or not I shall amend the convictions before me so as to make them good. the Right of Appeal. "Another point which weighs with me in that matter is this. The Magistrate fined the plaintiff £5. Mr. Myers applied to him to increase tho fine, if ho thought fit, to'' a : sum' substantially larger, in order that the plaintiff might havo a right of general appeal' to this Court, in which event the case would have been heard anew before a Judgo as if it had originated in this Court. The Magistrate refused, however, to accede to this request on the ground that the Judges or somo of the Judged had ruled that this was impropor. It is plain that in this. vospect tho Magistrate was in error," Continuing, His , Honour said that the question was not ono as to which thoro could be any binding pronouncement. He expressed tho opinion that it was right, in cases in which tho imposition of a fino resulted in loss of employment, or which, as_ in liconsing cases, might involve the risk of loss of property of great value, to impose a fine exceeding £5 in amount, if the person charged so desired, in order to allow of a general appeal. It was clear, therefore, that the Magistrate acted under an erroneous impression when he refused to give the plaintiff the opportunity of having the whole matter inquired- into in the Supreme Court. _ In His onr's opinion it was desirable that tho whole matter should havo boon so inquired into.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19161118.2.107

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2932, 18 November 1916, Page 15

Word count
Tapeke kupu
966

ANTI-SHOUTING Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2932, 18 November 1916, Page 15

ANTI-SHOUTING Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2932, 18 November 1916, Page 15

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert