JUDGE’S COMMENTS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 77, 1 September 1942, Page 4

JUDGE’S COMMENTS

COUNSEL IN UNIFORM COMPLAINT OF ERRONEOI S INFERENCES Auckland, Aug. 31. Some little while back Mr Justice Fair reminded a barrister who ap ! pea red before him in uniform to conduct an action that the Court expected 1 the courte: y of a request beforehand for permission to wear uniform instead lof robes. Last week the Chief Justice I (Sir Michael Myers), in Wellington made some remarks on the Question <*i j the appearance in the Supreme Court 1 reported in a Wellington paper and j reprinted locally. Mr Justice Fair, m j the Supreme Court 10-day. referred to j this report of the Chief Justice - rel marks. i “The report.” aid his Honour, includes a reference to myself by name I which apparently was not made by the Chief Justice. I am unable to sa> whether Ins remarks were c»iectl> i eported. but the report as published might well be considered by most of j its readers as meaning that I had j adopted an attitude in my Court to j ward, barristers appear.ng in uniform j which could be regarded as a denial ‘of the King’s commission, and a slight on the King’s uniform It nvav be as ! Mimed that no such offensive and ba-e • less innuendo was intended, but the j language of the statement as reported is unfortunate, and is capable of beai - ! ing that meaning; and regard both for I the high office which I have the honour Ito hold and my own reputation i e quires that I should correct any such I possible misunderstanding at once. I and that the newspapers that have j published the report in that form should correct the erroneous inferences that it may have given rise to.” RECORD OF SERVICE His Honour said that those who knew his record of public service and 1 his regard for those serving their coun j try in the armed forces were not likely I to be misled, but the great majority of I the traders of the report could not be so informed and he felt reluctantly ! obliged to refer to his record of service to show how baseless such an insinuation would be. j He had served for more than eight years in the military forces, five of them on active service. For nearly 22 j years he had been honoured by hold •lug His Majesty’s commission, first as jrn officer in the Army, then as Solici- ! tor-General of the Dominion, and f<> r the past eight years a judge of the • Supreme Court To associate his name, even inadvisedly, w ith a report conj veying a suggestion of impropriety. I seemed difficult to justify and might j well be considered libellous. I He did not propose to deal fully with jthe question which gave rise to the re | port, added his Honour. He would. ; however, point out that the King’s ! regulations for the Army and for the i Air Force did not forbid a barrister I who was on service from changing from uniform into the usual dress ’ when appearing in court. A barrister I was clearly not on military duty when j appearing in the Supreme Court. If. however, to change would occasion him real inconvenience, then, of course, he might properly appear in uniform. The question did not involve a mere I matter of courtesy, etiquette or form ality, concluded his Honour. A principle was involved that went much deeper than such matters, and his rul ing was given on the sole consider ation that it was the duty of the Courts of Justice to exercise the most scrupulous care to avoid any unnecessary departure from established prac tice which might possibly prejudice the absolute impartiality of the admims - j tration of justice.