HABEAS CORPUS WRIT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 220, 17 August 1937, Page 8

HABEAS CORPUS WRIT

INVERCARGILL APPLICATION. DECISION - TIESERVED. Per Press Association. INVERCARGILL, Aug. 16. In the Supreme Court to-day Mr G. J. Reed applied to Mr Justice Kennedy for a writ of habeas corpus for the releaso of Eric Clarence Taylor, garage proprietor, Invercargill, who was convicted by Mr AV. H. Freeman, S.M., on Wednesday and sentenced to l 4 days’ imprisonment on a charge of negligently driving a ear. The grounds of the application were: (1) That tlio warrant under which Taylor is detained was made without jurisdiction; (2) that the Magistrate improperly took judicial notice of facts neither given in evidence nor of which by law ho was entitled to take judicial notice; (3) that a list of previous convictions was improperly handed to the Magistrate previous to his having intimated whether he intended to convict or discharge the prisoner; (4) that proceedings were wholly irregular. In his affidavit, William Henry Freeman, Stipendiary Magistrate, said that he had read the affidavit of Taylor and the contents were substantially correct, subject to the qualification that the list of convictions referred to was handed to him after he had asked Taylor questions relating to previous convictions in Invercargill and Dunediii. On the evidence he considered the charge had been proved and he accordingly convicted defendant and sentenced him to 14 days’ imprisonment. Mr Reed said there was no dispute as to the facts, and he now applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the Magistrate took judicial notice of facts in respect of which he was not in a position to , take judicial notice. Counsel submitted that the Magistrate either prejudged the case or acted with bias. His Honour : Do you suggest the Magistrate had no right to ask your client when he was in the box questions regarding his previous convictions ? Counsel replied that he admitted the Magistrate was entitled to ask any question. “But, proceeding from that, do the facts in this case show that the Magistrate, in asking questions, so prejudged the case as to prohibit his acting judicially in this particular matter P” said Mr Reed.

His Honour: You say the Magistrate put questions and your client replied in the affirmative. That is all the Magistrate did. Mr Reed : The Magistrate apparently had in mind a newspaper report of a case in Dunedin. Up to that time no evidence had been given in Court of any such case, so, by implication, the Magistrate must have had the Dunedin case in his mind.

His Honour: Do you. sa.y the same about previous convictions in the Magistrate’s own Court? If that is so, magistrates who have heard cases are disqualified from hearing other cases concerning those persons with whom they have previously dealt in their courts. Counsel : It would be absurd for me to contend that, Your Honour. It is a question of fact in each ease. Mr H. J. Macalister, in putting the case for the Crown, said that, though accused told of his previous convictions in answer to questions by the Magistrate, they were questions which the Magistrate could properly ask. The fact that the list of previous convictions was handed in did not affect the position. “Counsel for accused now alleges as his sole grounds that the fact that the Magistrate asked certain questions shows his mind was biased, but I submit that the facts. do not even begin to prove bias,” e-aid Mr Macalister. “It is clear that at the time the Magistrate began asking accused questions he had told the accused he did not believe his evidence. He then asked accused about his previous convictions in his own Court and in Dunedin. That was perfectly proper. The suggestion that because the Magistrate knew of the previous convictions he showed bias is a most amazing contention. Regarding the prisoner s conviction at Dunedin, we must presume that the Magistrate, like everyone else, reads the newspapers, but fie asked accused about it. There is not the slightest evidence 'of bias. It this were established it would be improper for a Magistrate to try any person more than once. The proceedings were regular, and there was no excessive II is* Honour raid lie would take time to consider his decision.