RAGWORT CASE

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 3251, 12 April 1943, Page 5

RAGWORT CASE

REHEARING GRANTED ARGUMENT IN COURT “GOING BEYOND AUTHORITIES” A rehearing, which the Magistrate: Mr W. H. Freeman, emphasised must not be taken as a precedent as it was granted solely in the belief that no injustice would be done and that justice might possibly be assisted, was allowed in the case Matamata County Council v. Norah Maud Tiddy and Sarah Elizabeth Tiddy for failure to clear ragwort and which was heard at the February sitting of the Matamata Court.

Mr G.'G. Bell appeared for the applicants and Mr J. Grahame for the County Council. Mr Bell said that the actual grounds on which the application for a rehearing was made could be summarised: (1) The Court was wrong in deciding not to permit defendants to be heard through their agents.

(2) Having refused to hear the defendants’ agents, and having heard the inspector, the Court had prejudiced the defence.

Continuing, Mr Bell said that the inspector had said that the occupier was simply an agent and had referred in disparaging terms to him as “only a long speculator” ;and as being the “dummy of defendants.” The Magistrate: Had he any authority to represent the defendants ? Can you show me any authority whereby Tiddy, not a solicitor, can appear in Court and represent the de-, fendants ?

Mr Bell held that defendants had a bona fide belief that as occupier, Tiddy could represent them. He asked if any substantial wrong would have' been done had Tiddy been allowed to state his case. The speaker concluded that he, as counsel, had not been allowed to appear. The Magistrate: I do not think that is so. I have no right to refuse counsel to appear.

After further discussion . the Magistrate said that on the statement now made by counsel, assuming • the remark was made in Court, it was made too -late—when defendant saw how the case was going.

Mr Bell held that he had requested to apnear before the case was finished.

•The Magistrate: I will not accept that. I would not do such a thing. Is not the whole trouble this: You think the fine is too heavy and want it reduced?

Counsel denied this suggestion. In his opinion there was a legitimate defence which had not been put forward. The speaker quoted a case to show that it was the practice of courts to grant every opportunity to state" the defence.

The Magistrate commented the case quoted was a civil one, but counsel held the pertinent point applied. The Magistrate remarked that defendants were served with' summonses to appear and did not. “It is the practice,” he’ added, “that a rehearing is only granted if new evidence which was not brought previously might alter the decision Of the Court.” Mr Bell again maintained that Tiddy was quite bona fide in his belief that he could appear as occupier. The Magistrate: But he knew he could not. He was a land agent for years. He knows the procedure. After further cross-talk, Mr Freeman asked at what stage in the proceedings Mr Bell asked to be allowed to appear. Mr Bell: When the inspector went out of the box.

The Magistrate stated it could not have been so as he had no power to refuse 'counsel the right to appear if such were requested at the right time. "“It would never do to allow litigation to go on like this—to see how a case goes and then ask to appear. Mr Bell: If you are prejudiced against Tiddy and are trying Tiddy it is not much use my going on. You refused an officer of the Court the right to appear. The woman has made a statement on oath and Tiddy is not a dummy. The Magistrate: You are definitely wrong. I refused no one permission. Mr Bell: I say in this Court your Worship refused permission for me to appear. Mr Freeman: At the tail end of the case perhaps. You made a remark that Tiddy should have employed a solicitor before.

Exactly! Before the case finished. Mr Bell added that no magistrate had taken a more lenient view of ragwort cases and the practice invariably had been to give defendants a chance to clear the ragwort and cases had been adjourned to allow a chance to clear. Had you known an attempt had been made to clear you would have taken a different view. The Magis rate: How do you

know? Prominent farmers, one of whom was the chairman of the County Council, came to Court and stated the farm was in a very bad state. And farmers don’t like coming to Court jmd giving evidence against their neighbours. So don’t blame the Court; blame yourself. It is contrary to the principles of British justice to see the way a case goes and then to ask leave to defend.

Mr Bell: I hold you convicted on ex parte evidence. The Magistrate: You say you wish the case heard on its merits; but now you know everything that was said and can come along and state your case accordingly. Where is the new evidence which could not come before the Court? They were served with summonses and had every chance. Mr Bell: , If the defence had been called, knowing the shortage of sodium and labour you might have taken a totally different view. At this stage in the argument the Magistrate invited Mr J. Grahame to state his views on behalf of the County Council. Counsel stressed that the application had not produced any new evidence. The only evidence was in the two affidavits filed and one of them did not even- mention ragwort. The other facts mentioned about 290 sheep and the shortage of labour were only excuses and not new evidence. The only point to be considered is: Has any new evidence been produced which would tend to make the Magistrate alter his decision. There is no suggestion of such evidence before the Court yet the law demands that the applicant for a rehearing must support his application for rehearing by such evidence. .Mr Bell: They were convicted on ex parte evidence; that is our case. After some further cross-talk, Mr Freeman said that he would grant the application on terms although he was going beyond the authorities. Mr Grahame objected as several witnesses might now be called with the facts known.

The Magistrate: Well, we are in a country town and no injustice is being done. Costs totalling £3 3s were awarded • against applicants’ counsel and the Magistrate then made the comment quoted above. In the previous case the two defendants referred to were, fined £lO each plus costs. 1