CRITICISM OF JUSTICES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 223, 20 August 1937, Page 6

CRITICISM OF JUSTICES

MAGISTRATE’S COMMENT. WELLINGTON, Aug. 20. “I wish sliortiy to reier to the unfortunate and regrettable incident ot a minister or the Crown puoncly denouncing the actions ot certain justices in language consistent only with a positive right to discipline justices wnose judicial decisions differ lrom what tiie minister thinks they should l>e; a positive right not only to discipline justices but stipendiary magistrates as well.” bo sa,d mr J. H. Luxrord, S.M., when, in the course ot an address last nigut to tile Honorary Justices’ Association of the city of Wellington and district, he touched on recent comments of a Minister of the Crown on penalties imposed by justice* on motorists intoxicated in charge cf cars.

“The Minister stated very plainly that lie was satisfied with the way magistrates were dealing with the particular class of case to which he was referring, which course leads irresistibly to the inference that they would have come under his lash it he had not been satisfied. “If the Minister’s action is to pass unchallenged and a new precedent is thereby established, the first step has been taken to destroy the reign of law, the sine qua noil ot a free and democratic people. “The minister probably never realised the implications to be drawn rrom his words, yet the principle involved is so fundamental that ve should not inquire into liis inceptions but luiequivocably affirm that, in spite of threats and warnings, we will continue to discharge our duties in accordance with the oath we took when we entered, upon the duties of our offices. “I received something of a shock a little while ago when visiting a relative in the country. He mentioned that 'the magistrates seemed to be tightening up on offenders against the motor regulations, and added: ‘But of course you have to do what the Minister tells you.’ When I expressed surprise that he should 'even think sucu a thing, he said, ‘Well, that is what everyone in this part thinks.’ And now I am forced to wonder how many other people think the same. . “Let me say this emphatically, that I have never "heard, nor do I believe, that any Minister of the Crown has tried, directly or. indirectly, deliberately to influence the decision of a stipendiary magistrate in any particular case. Equally emphatically do I say that probably never before have the Minister and the permanent head of -he Department of Justice been more punctiliously careful to avoid the slightest suspicion of departmental mlerterenoe in their official and unofficial contact with the magistrates. \et the very insecurity of the’ tenure of a magistrate’s office is a weakness in the judicial body, more insidious than even active interference.”