CONTEMPT OF COURT

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27782, 6 October 1955, Page 12

CONTEMPT OF COURT

Man Arrested During Valuation Appeal

REMARK LATER WITHDRAWN

“The Court is biased.” This statement by Charles Batchelor, a builder, during the hearing of his appeal by the Land Valuation Committee yesterday against the revaluation of his property at 97 Linwood avenue, led to his arrest for contempt of Court.

Batchelor was cross-examining a Crown witness and the chairman of the committee, Mr L. N. Ritchie, S.M.. was trying to keep him to question and answer when Batchelor made the statement.

“You will withdraw that statement or I will have you arrested by the Court orderly for contempt of Court. The constable is present. Be upstanding, constable,” said the chairman. Constable V. F. Townshend, who was sitting at the back of the Courtroom, stood up. , , “Now, Mr Batchelor, do you withdraw that statement? We have given you a lot of latitude,” said the chairman. “I say the Court’s biased, said Batchelor. “Arrest that man, constable,’ said the chairman. “I still maintain the Court’s biased,” said Batchelor as Constable Townshend was escorting him from the Courtroom. Batchelor was brought back to the Courtroom when other appeals had been disposed of. “Is there anything you wish to say, Mr Batchelor?” said the chairman. “I was asked to come into the Court again,” Batchelor replied. “Do you wish to apologise for the statement you made?—a statement which cuts' at the roots of British justice,” said the chairman. “I've nothing to say. sir,” replied Batchelor. Request for Apology “You realise what it means? You will go to gaol,” said the chairman. “No British Court can tolerate a statement that it is partial or biased in favour of a Government department. I can tell you that this committee already has given decisions against the department. If you do not apologise I have a most uripleasant duty to perform. That is to send you to prison.

“You are not represented by counsel and we have given you latitude in the presentation of your case I would not have given counsel for two minutes,” said the chairman. “If any counsel so far forgot himself as to make the statement you made, he would immediately be committed for contempt. If you see fit to retract your statement my colleagues and I will accept your apology.” said the chairman.

The latter words by the chairman were accompanied by a weeping plea from Mrs Batchelor in the back of the Courtroom—“ Yes. Yes. Please, please, say it and get home.” “I’ve nothing to say,” said Batchelor

The chairman then gave the decision on Batchelor’s appeal against the valuation of his property. The committee reduced the unimproved value by £25 and left the improved value at the revalued amount. “Now I come to the unfortunate part”, said the chairman. “Do you wish to withdraw your statement?” “No, sir.” replied Batchelor. “Constable, you will take this man in charge and bring him to my room immediately,” said the chairman. The chairman and his two colleagues on the committee left the Courtroom. Batchelor, escorted by Constable Townshend and followed by his wife and the clerk of the Court, went to the chairman’s room upstairs in the Court building. Some minutes later all seven came downstairs and the outside door was opened for Batchelor and his wife to leave the building and go home. Batchelor had withdrawn the offending statement. Associated with the chairman on the Bench were Mr C. J. Wilson, a permanent member of the committee, and Mr J. M. G. Johnston, representing the Christchurch City Council. Mr E. R. Sceats, inspecting valuer, and Messrs A. P. Faulls and P. R. Holmes, district valuers, represented the Valuer-General in opposing various appeals. The committee sat in the Magistrate’s Court and heard appeals by property owners against the revaluations of their properties by the Valuation Department. The appeals concerned properties in New Brighton, Sumner, Linwood avenue, Ferry road, Charlesworth street, Aylesford street’ and Leinster road. The appeal concerning an Aylesford street property was dismissed and the unimproved value of the Leinster road property was reduced by £25. Decisions were reserved in the other appeals.