RELEASE REFUSED

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1070, 6 September 1930, Page 1

RELEASE REFUSED

Wealthy Farmer on Roto Roa

JUDGE UPHOLDS MAGISTRATE

HOLDING that Cecil Hazlett, the wealthy North Taieri, Dunedin, farmer who is an inmate of the Roto Roa Island Inebriates’ Home, had had a proper hearing 1 of his case before committal to the institution, Mr. Justice Smith, in the Supreme Court today, discharged the rule nisi on Hazlett's application for a writ of Habeas Corpus. Having failed to secure his release from the institution, Hazlett intends lodging an appeal for hearing at the next Court of Appeal session and, pending a decision on these new proceedings, he was released on bail until October 14.

The proceedings for writ of habeas corpus, which attracted wide interest, were the subject of an extensive written judgment of about 30 pages, which took Mr. Justice Smith more than 40 minutes to read this morning. Hazlett was committed to the institution on December 17 last year on an order made by Mr. J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., of Dunedin, on the complaint of a brother. The hearing took place in Cecil Hazlett’s home at North Taieri where the defendant was in bc;d. In the course of his judgment, his I Honour referred to Mr. Sullivan’s con- ! tention that the order for Hazlett’s = detention was illegal, because it omit- j ted to recite that there had been a hearing of the complaint that Hazlett was an habitual inebriate. The judge pointed out, however, that the recital in the form that the magistrate was ; satisfied that Hazlett was an habitual inebriate must be taken to indicate that there had been a hearing, as required by statute. The application, therefore, could not succeed upon the ground that there was any defect in the order for detention. LAW IN DOMINION In New Zealand, the judge continued, an applicant for a writ of habeas corpus was entitled to show that the order under which he was detained was made in a proceeding in an inferior court, which was a nullity in law, because of want or excess of jurisdiction in the conduct of that proceeding. The main objection by Mr. Sullivan was that the order for detention was made in a proceeding in excess of the magistrate’s jurisdiction, because the complaint was not heard and determined by the magistrate as required by the statute. His Honour proceeded to recite the powers of magistrates to commit persons to reformatory institutions, including inebriates’ homes, and also powers of relatives to initiate proceedings, and the authority of magistrates to hear complaints in private. Reference was also made by the judge to the distinction between detention in inebriates’ homes and State reformatory institutions, He quoted decided cases in English law' at length on the powers of justices, and stated that the result showed that if a man was in the presence of justices, no matter how* he came there, and was then charged with an offence, which justices had power to determine, they might proceed forthwith to do so. If an application for an adjournment was made at the commencement of the hearing, and was refused, current authority was that justices proceeded without jurisdiction, and the conviction would be quashed. If, however, a defendent did not apply for an adjournment, and when called upon for his defence, either did or did not give evidence, the ! justices had jurisdiction. ISSUE OF WARRANT His Honour proceeded to apply the i law to the facts in the present case. | He stated that it appeared that a | brother had found Cecil Hazlett ill ! on several occasions from over-indul-gence in liquor, and when the brother threatened to apply for an order for

committal of Cecil Hazlett to the Island, the latter threatened to cut his throat. Atfer hearing these complaints the magistrate decided to issue a warrant instead of a summons, and his Honour found that, although the warrant could not now be found, it had been issued. The judge held it was to be inferred that the magistrate had fixed the time and place for hearing, but no notice was given to Cecil Hazlett because the magistrate thought it would be dangerous as the defendant might take his own life. The doctor* considered that it would have been dangerous to move Hazlett to Dunedin for the hearing. When asked if he would consent to go to the Island, Hazlett refused and declared his intention of resisting any order. After the execution of the warrant, his Honour stated, Hazlett was under arrest, and was personally before tne magistrate. MAGISTRATE’S JURISDICTION “In my view of the law,” proceeded the judge, "the magistrate had juris- | diction there and then to hear and determine the complaint, provided that Hazlett understood the nature of the proceedings and did not object." j At the conclusion of the reading of the complaint, said his Honour, the | clerk of court asked Hazlett if he consented to an order being made. This 1 was not a question that should have | been asked. Hazlett should have been I asked if he had any cause to show why an order should not be made for his detention in a certified inebriates’ home. His Honour held that Hazlett, although in a weak state, knew the nature of the proceedings. , The judge held also that the intimation given by the magistrate to Hazlett during the hearing of the first ' witness, that he would have the opportunity to ask questions and call i evidence, was sufficient for jurisdic - ; tion. At the conclusion of the evi- [ denee, Hazlett asked questions of the witnesses, but did not reply when the j magistrate asked him if he desired to J give evidence. The order for comj mittal was then made. ONLY ONE IRREGULARITY His Honour pointed out that at no < time in the proceedings did Hazlett apply for delay or adjournment of the i hearing, or for the assistance of couni sel or a solicitor. The only irregular- ' ity in the proceedings was the omission to ask Hazlett in specific words whether he had any cause to show why an order for his detention should not be made. “I am of opinion,” added the judge, “that the defendant is not entitled to complain that he did not have a hearing required by Statute.” His Honour also decided that there was no evidence to show that the complainant had selected his own magis- ! trate, thereby voiding the proceedings. He considered also that there 1 was nothing in the argument that Hazlett could not be committed to a : State institution because he had not been previously convicted for drunkenness. his Honour pointing out that an institution of this type was not au inebriates’ home. The question of costs was deferred pending the decision of the Court of Appeal on the appeal, which Mr. Sullivan stated would be prosecuted.