IMMIGRATION ACT

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28347, 5 August 1957, Page 13

IMMIGRATION ACT

Criticism By S.M. (New Zeaiana Press Association/ AUCKLAND, August 4. Silao Lamusitele, the Samoan with a New Zealand family, who was automatically gaoled a month ago pending his deportation (and whom the Minister of Immigration later decided not to deport) came before Mr M. C. Astley, S.M., again in the Auckland Magistrate’s Court.

Last week, the Crown applied for his release from goal. The Magistrate granted him general bail, saying that he had no power otherwise under the Immigration Restriction Act to see him until one month after he had been sentenced—-today.

So Lamusitele appeared today for further direction under the provisions of the act, and Mr E. C. Findley (for the Collector of Customs) applied for probation for him.

Mr S. C. Ennor, counsel for Lamusitele, said this seemed an appropriate course, but it was a pity that the matter could not finally be cleared up. The Magistrate had. earlier commented on the amendments to the Immigration Restriction Act which had removed the Court’s discretion in deportation cases, and said that this case demonstrated the rigidity of a statute where it bound a Court to make certain orders involving human liberty. In its present form, the statute required the Court to issue warrants for imprisonment in these cases without any inquiry into the ethics of thfe matter.

The Court thus became a cog in a machine, and this was contrary to the principles of British law.

The Magistrate said he was now being asked to make an order which was not giving effect to the intention of the act. This course was an expedient due to the form of the statute. He admitted Lamusitele to “probation” in terms of the act.