ADVICE TO JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 17, 14 October 1921, Page 7

ADVICE TO JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

ADMINISTRATION OF LAW ADDRESS BY MR. JUSTICE FRAZER . "The History and Functions of Justices of tho Peace" was the title of a lecture delivered by His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer to the Justices of the Peaco Association in the Magistrate’s Court last evening. Mr. R. D. Hanlon presided, and there rias a largo attendance of members. His Honour, after dealing with the origin of Justices of the Peace in 1195, traced their history to the present day. He said that in New Zealand Justices were appointed by the Governor-General, but no properly qualification was required, as was until recently necessary in England, and every Justice was appointed for tho whole Dominion and not for a particular country or borough, as in England. Tho jurisdiction of a. New Zealand Justice differed in some respects from that of on English Justice, though not very greatly. In New Zealand they discharged functions both of a ministerial and a judicial nature. A Justice acted in a ministerial capacity when ho received informations and complaints, issued summonses and warrants, and took affidavits and declarations. He acted in a judicial capacity when ho sat to hear and determine a criminal charge or a civil action. When ho,sat to- determine whether there was sufficient evidence to commit a person for trial, ha acted in a combined ministerial and judicial capacity. The instances in which sureties of the peace might ba ordered were pet out in the Justices of tho Peace Act, and might be summarised n« cases where a man was in fear of bodily 'harm to himself or family; where jrovolring, insulting, or offensive conduct had been used, and was likely to be repeated and lead to a breach of the peace; where there was reason to believe that certain threats of criminal acts had been made and were likely to be carried into effect; where <horo was a challenge to fight or an intention to fight, or where there had been an incitement or attempted incitement to take part in a riot or breach of the peace. The Justice could order a defendant to enter into recognisances with one or more sureties for a term not exceeding twelve months. In more serious^!cases, the defendant could be bound over to appear at the next sittings of the Supreme Court, and meantime to keep the peace. Tn the event of defendant failing or refusing to entfT into recognisances, tho Justice could commit him to prison until he did so, hut for no longer term than that for which ho was. bound over. Generally speaking, a Justice should refuse to bind a defendant when he was satisfied the complainant had acted out of malice or vexation, or had no real cause of fear. Another important phaso of tho administration of the law was the appointing and swearing in of special constables in anticipation of riots. The Riot Act. Still another aspect of tho peace jurisdiction of Justices was contained in the provisions relating to riots. When a justice had had notice that twelve or more persons were unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together to the disturbance of the public peace, it was his duty to resort to the place and read tho Riot Act. He, however, should not take this upon himself unless ho was satisfied the assembly was for an unlawful purpose, and not merely a mooting held for some purpose not contrary to law, which i rd become excited and noisy. Any person forcibly Inny dwin- a Justice from reading tho Act was liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life. If a Justice, in tho exercise of his judicial functions, heard an information in respect to an offence punishable summarily, he could, if he considered' the defendant acted in such a wav as would have justified a complaint for sureties of the peace, m addition to. any penalty to which tho offender was liable for a breach of the law. hind him over to keep the peace. Tho matters *r> far touched upon related to the duties and powers of a Justice in their earlte=t function as conservators of tho public peace. In actual every-day practice his most important duties were on the ministerial side—the taking of informations and complaints, the: issuing of summonses nnd warrants, and the taking, of affidavits. affirmations, n nd declarations. Ho should not, however, issue a warrant for arrest unless the information was on on. Mt. TTc should issue fv summops in preference to n warrant unless B&tisfled that the accused was likely to abscond or that the interests of justice might suffer. He should not .take any information or complaint or issue any summons or warrant if either party to the was a public body, company, or chib of which he (tho Justice) was a member, for the fact of his having an interest in the proceedings other than as an ordinary member of the public was a disqualification. It was important to sec that tho dates on these documents were filled in. Regarding bailing of accused persons, some were bailable as of right; others at discretion: while treasonable cases wcro not bailable at all. A reference to tho appropriate statute would' show into which category an offence fell. The main questions to bo decided were tho nature of tho alleged offence, nature of the evidence, tho possibility of- a conviction, the punishment if accused was convicted, and tho position of tho. accused. Bail when demanded of right should l not ho made prohibitive to a man in poor circumstances, and a wealthy man should not be given an opportunity to escape from justice Judicial Duties. The most important duty of a justice nowadays was undertaken when ho sat in his judicial capacity to deal summarily with informations and complaints, and in his combined ministerial and judicial capacity to take the preliminary examination of persons accused of serious offences triable only in the Supreme Court. He should always refrain from taking sides, and not judge by appearances. Evidence was judged by its quality, and not its quantity, and as an old legal maxiin saidl: "Witnesses aro to be weighed, not counted." Justices should not expect too exact a correspondence between tho statement of witnesses of a street collision, an assault, or any occurrence in which events followed rapidly in tho space of a few seconds, for no two minds worked exactly alike. In deciding whether an accused person should bo convicted or discharged, the Court should always remember that while in civil cases a mere preponderance of evidence was sufficient, in criminal cases the guilt of the accused had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt —not a fanciful doubt, but a real doubt. If such a doubt existed, then the invariable rule of British law was that the accused must have the benefit of it. It was better that a gruilty man should go free than that an innocent man should be wrongly condemned. Regarding punishment for offences in eases where tho offence was criminal, tho ago of the offender, the circumstances in which tho offence was committed, the previous character of the offender, tho prevalence of the class of offence and its difficulty of detection were all factors that had to be considered in coming to a conclusion as to tho manner in which an offender should he dealt with. A Justice should always have in mind the possibility of an offender’s reformation, but should not overlook the deterrent effect on others of the punishment of a proved offender. The requisites of a goocT'Justico were a sincere desire to bg just and Impartial, hear every case with patience and atten-

tion, and rely as far as possible on his common senso and hie knowledge of humanity. If a Justice acted in accordance with these principles, ho would find that his decisions would be received with respect. A vote of thanks was accorded Ilin Honour for his instructive address. j