Release from Roto Roa

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1053, 18 August 1930, Page 10

Release from Roto Roa

SOUGHT BY WEALTHY INMATE

Habeas Corpus Invoked

COUNSEL'S GRAVE ACCUSATIONS

The application for a writ of habeas corpus, by the wealthy North Taieri farmer, Cecil ITazlett, seeking his release from the Roto Roa Island Inebriates* Home was heard by Mr. Justic Smith in the Supreme Court today. The point at issue was whether Hazlett had had a proper hearing of his case before committal. Mr. J. J. Sullivan supported the application, and Mr. Y. IST. Hubble opposed it. “A more important matter, so far as the principle is concerned, lias not been before the Supreme Court for some time,” Mr. Sullivan commenced. The issue was whether a man brought before a court of justice in New Zealand had had a fair trial and whether the party bringing him before the court had the right to select his own judge. On December 17 last, according to Mr. Sullivan. Hazlett.'who was sick in bed in his home at North Taieri, was committed to Roto Roa Island. In the house there appeared Mr. Charles Payne, solicitor, who asked the sick man if he would go to the island, Drs. Evans and Spedding. E. C. Hazlett and L. C. ITazlett, the clerk of the court, and Mr. J. R. Bartholomew, "S.M. The room contained only two chairs and a small table which was used as the Bench, and while these people stod round, the “criminal proceedings,” as the clerk of court described them, followed. Hazlett was sentenced to 12 months’ detention on the island. The police present were in plain clothes, and “everything possible was done to disarm the defendant,” added Mr. Sullivan. There was evidence of the issue of the warrant, which had now been lost by a constable in a struggle with Hazlett at Auckland.

Counsel complained that his representatives in Dunedin had been refused permission to search the records on the ground that they were of “criminal proceedings.” Mr. Sullivan asserted that there was no authority in law for this refusal. In ordinary circumstances a warrant would have been issued to a constable to bring tiie man before a justice, but ir this case the justice Went to the man. A Gilbertian situation occurred on arrival of the parties at the house. According to the affidavits, they, including the magistrate, arranged at the gate that Mr. Payne should enter first and endeavour to induce Hazlett to go voluntarily to the Island, and that if the man declined the police were to follow and then the magistrate. “GREATEST SAFEGUARD” “One of the greatest safeguards of citizens is that they do not know what magistrate will try them,” continued Mr. Sullivan. In this case, however, counsel claimed that the complainant had selected the magistrate who apparently was prepared to submit to all the “little intrigues going on, by waiting at the gate uutU he got the signal to go in.” The magistrate should have followed the ordinary practice and procedure of the Magistrate’s Court, Mr. Sullivan argued, and should have issued a notice to the clerk of court at Dunedin fixing a date for the holding of a court at North Taiere. Yet in this case the court had been constituted without notice. In support of the contention that Hazlett had not had a fair, full or adequate trial. Mr. Sullivan quoted the doctor’s evidence that Hazlett was sick through over-indulgence in liquor and was on the verge of the D T's, and therefore he could not participate properly in the hearing. They bad visited Hazlett’s home with the “gun loaded,” the order of committal beiug typed. Counsel argued that the magistrate came to commit and not to try the man. After hearing evidence the magistrate made the order for committal without asking Hazlett if he> wished to call evidence. He added that the Act had been in force 21 years and this was the first occasion that a magistrate’s decision had been questioned. “CONFLICTING EVIDENCE” In opposing the application, Mr. Hubble said that the issue would have to be decided on conflicting evidence. The question of sobriety was not directly before the court now, but whether the present applicant participated in and had a proper hearing of his case. The affidavits of the applicant were in conflict with all others, and the question would have to be decided largely on credibility. Counsel traversed the various affidavits, stating that a brother asserted that Cecil Hazlett had been drinking for some years, and that a warning had been given him that application for his detention would be made if he did not desist. Cecil Hazlett had threatened to cut his throat if such an application was made. Counsel claimed that Cecil Hazlett had taken an active part in the proceedings at his home, and had questioned several witnesses. He supported this contention by referring to Hazlett’s statement that he would resist the making of an order for Committal to the island. Again, Dr.

i Spedding, who had attended Hazlett l for some years, declared that Haz- | lett fully understood the proceedings. ! The clerk of court also stated that j Hazlett availed himself of the oppori tunity to cross-examine witnesses. “GRAVE ACCUSATION” Mr. Hubble went on to refer to Hazlett’s statement that he had lived a sober life, which, counsel stated, was related by the Dunedin medical men and by staff-Captain Buttimore, who .was in charge of the Home on the Island. A grave accusation made by Hazlett was that he was a director of a certain company, and that the proceedings were instigated by his brothers because he was opposing them on the directorate. This statement was not. to be believed, because Hazlett.

himself admitted that he had not taken an active part in the company for some years past. Counsel claimed that the proceedings were not of a criminal nature, and no imprisonment was involved. He asserted that there was ample legal authority for magistrates to act as in this case, in event of urgency, and that all the formalities of the law had been complied with. (Proceeding.)