IMPRISONMENT IN DEFAULT

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21866, 20 August 1936, Page 4

IMPRISONMENT IN DEFAULT

PROPOSED AMENPMM * TO LAW fines and maintenance ORDERS What is described m ,&:£eri(msdefect in New Zealand law relating: to the enforcement of by imprisonment' in default of payment is discussed in the annual report of the Prisons Department. The report states that whereas in Kngland a defaulter must be dealt with ,in 1 115 presence, in New Zealand, If the .defendant does not appear "upon summons the court may, and frequently does, make an order for, imprisonment in absentia! * . ; ;■ “It is surely wrong in principle, the . report continues, “that it should be possible to sentence q to six months’ imprisonment in his absence; especially for an offence which may not- be regarded by the . defendant ss f ~ ‘criminal,’ and of which he may not appreciate' the serious consequences; and especially for am offence the. burden of proof of which lies on the defendant. In practically every other case where an offence is punishable by imprisonment for ja period exceeding three months the defendant’s attendance is essential,; because in such cases he has a right* to trial by jury and the court cannot proceed unless he is present to make his election.” The whole question of imprisonment in default of the payment of fines is considered in the report’*in the light of the report of a departmental committee in England in 1934. Though this report reaffirmed the; principle of imprisonment for default, it made recommendations intended to reduce the number of terms of Imprisonment for default and to ensure more equitable treatment of that class of offender. "It Is apparent that our law requires revision if it is to conform with the principles enunciated by the committee.” states the. NeW Zealand report. "Some modification of the new English procedure is necessary, however, - to meet our conditions. It is. proposed to recommend certain amendments of the Justices of {he Peace Act which, if given effect to, will, it is thought, prove satisfactory from a practical point of view and at the same time CUnform substantially ‘with the principle laid down—so that those who, having the money to pay, prefer imprisonment, will receive punitive -terms and so discourage this form of unsocial Conduct. “The proposals referred to include provision that a period of 14 days’ grace shall be allowed in every case where a fine is imposed, except where the court specifically directs otherwise; a provision that the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine shall be fixed in every case by a magistrate personally}, and that no warrant of committal in default of payment shall be issued until enquiry has been made into the circumstances surrounding the default, i and unless the magistrate iS satisfied?that no further time to pay Is warranted.”