HAZLETT CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 194, 18 August 1930, Page 5

HAZLETT CASE.

ROTOROA COMMITTAL.

QUESTION OF LEGALITY.

MAGISTRATE'S PROCEDURE

QUESTIONED

COURT RESERVES JUDGMENT.

Further argument was heard at the Supreme Court this morning, before his Honor, Mr. Justice Smith, in the application for a writ of habeas corpus in the case of Cecil Hazlett, a well-known farmer of North Taieri, Otago, who Avas committed to the home for inebriates, at Rotoroa, Auckland.

The matter first came before the Court a month ago, "and has been adjourned twice in order to enable documents to be obtained from Dunedin. The basis for claiming a writ was that Hazlett had been improperly committed. According to the affidavits his relatives who applied for his committal, feared he would carry out an alleged threat to take his life if he got to know of any attempt to send him to Rotoroa. The affidavits set out that the magistrate and others went out to Hazlett's place, that he was in bed ill, and that the matter was heard and decided in his bedroom. -

| . Mr'. Sullivan this morning said the .warrant had been lost. It was important, as it was necessary to know how Hazlett had been dealt with at committal Under the procedure laid down by law, the man should have been taken before a magistrate, but here the magistrate was taken to the man. They took out to Hazlett's house a typed order of committal to the island. It was evidently typed in Duriedin, so the inference was that the party went out to commit, and not to try, Hazlett. "Gilbertian Position." A warrant should be handed to a policeman, who would execute:it, and so give the man some notice that he was to be tried. The affidavits showed a Gilbertian position. Amongst themselves, the magistrate included, the party that went out to Hazlett's house agreed on the plan of campaign. Mr. Payne, the solicitor for the complainant, was to go into the house first, and if he could not induce Hazlett to go to the island the police were to follow and take in the warrant. Immediately afterwards the magistrate followed. Hazlett had had no notice, as he should .have had.

The man did not have a fair hearing. He was ill in bed and in his room alone. He was suffering, according to the doctor, from over-indulgence in alcoholic liquor. Another affidavit said that when Hazlett arrived.at the island he was in the last stages of D.T.'s, so that his condition in his own room when "the Court" was held, must have been pretty bad, and he could have been in no state to undergo a "fair trial" as required by law. No Similar Case Known. His Honor asked if counsel had any case bearing on an interpretation of the words "in private" in .the Act under which commitals were made. The Act stated that a magistrate might, if considered advisable, hear an" application "in private." ' Mr, Sullivan said the Act had been in force for 20 years and the present was 3 the first time a magistrate's action had been called in question. His Honor: There are no cases, then, on the point. Mr. Sullivan: No, your Honor. Summing up his arguments, Mr. Sullivan claimed that Hazlett had not had a fair hearing, and that the complainant, who was Hazlett's brother, had selected the magistrate who made the committal. There was, however, a further point. Before a man could be committed to a reformatory home he should have four convictions, but Hazlett had never been convicted. As a further point, Mr. Sullivan submitted that the order of committal did not comply with the law in certain essential details. Hazlett's Credibility. Mr. Hubble, who appeared to oppose the application, contended that the version of Hazlett was not so reliable as those of others,, who had made affidavits. His Honor: It is mainly on four affidavits that the argument has been founded. Mr. Hubble said that was so, except as to what happened at the hearing. Counsel referred to an affidavit setting out that when Hazlett's brother threatened'that if he did not give up the drink he would be committed to the island. In that affidavit it was stated that Hazlett had replied that he would cut his throat if any attempt were made to send him to the island/. That fact was important, as it would have a great. bearing on the attitude of the brothers in taking steps to have Hazlett sent to the island. Mr. Hubble went on to quote from further, affidavits showing the drinking hahits of Hazlett. Counsel contended the affidavits, showed that Hazlett had been fully seized of the meaning of the proceedings at Hazlett's house. The magistrate stated that, he fully explained the whole procedure to Hazlett. They must take it that if an experienced magistrate like Mr. Bartholomew said he fully explained the matter to Hazlett, then that Hazlett was in a fit state to-realise the situation.

Mr. Hubble said that even if Hazlett had been unjustly committed, what was his subsequent procedure? He was sent to the island on December 20, he was absent on parole in February and March, returning of his own accord on each occasion. He thus indicated that he realised lie was in the institution for his own good. There • could be no dispute about that. It was only when the authorities at the island felt compelled to refuse Hazlett further leave that the prese'nt proceedings were taken.

Private Hearing. The mere existence of the phrase, "in private," in the section of the Act dealing with hearings for committal showed that the magistrate had wide powers. Other, parts of the Act strengthened the view that much faith was placed in the discretion of the magistrate. _ It was essential that a magistrate should have ■the power to act urgently, otherwise theman might be dead, or do himself an injury before he could be saved from himself. Counsel contended that all the requirements of the Act had been complied with in Hazlctt's committal. On the affidavits it was clear that Hazlett was fully aware of what was going on when the magistrate heard the matter. Counsel contended that the Court held in Hazlett's room was properly set up. A magistrate was quite within his rights in going out to a private house and holding a Court if in his discretion the circumstances demanded it. Counsel contended that Hazlett was properly before the Court, and the magistrate had jurisdiction to sit, and consequently the application for a writ of habeas corpus would not lie. Counsel dealt at length on the legal aspects of the case. After hearing further arguments, his Honor reserved judgment.