Minister Concerned Over Man’s Time In Custody

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30737, 29 April 1965, Page 1

Minister Concerned Over Man’s Time In Custody

(From Our Own Reporter)

WELLINGTON, April 28.

“The fact that this case did occur must be regarded seriously, but it was exceptional and there is no cause for public concern that the courts or the administration do not pay full regard to the preservation of the right of the individual to his personal liberty,” said the Minister of Justice (Mr Hanan) today.

He was referring to a case at Christchurch in which a man charged with receiving stolen property was held in custody on remand for three months and a half before being discharged without trial.

The charge had been brought first in Timaru on December 18, Mr Hanan said, and the accused remanded in custody to Christchurch.

There had been a series of remands until March 10 when, after an election to be tried by jury, the preliminary hearing was conducted and the accused was committed for trial.

On April 2 the accused was brought before a judge, who gave special consideration to the case as the accused was still in custody, and the next criminal sessions were not to begin until May. After commenting on the insufficiency of the evidence to prove the charge, the Court discharged the accused. Two Aspects Mr Hanan said that on seeing the newspaper report of the case, he was concerned about two aspects. First, it seemed an extraordinary time had elapsed from the date of accused’s arrest until the preliminary hearing of the case in the Magistrate’s Court. Second, it disturbed him to hear of anyone being detained in custody on re-

mand for such a long time.

“Under section 152 of the Summary Proceedings Act no remand can exceed eight days without the consent of the accused,” Mr Hanan said. “That is to say that at any time eight days after arrest, the accused or his counsel could have urged that the matter be dealt with by the Magistrate without further delay,” he said. Subsequent inquiries had shown the young man had been represented by solicitors from the early stages of the case, and he therefore had the benefit of legal advice if he objected to the remands. Nevertheless, Mr Hanan said, he was still disturbed that a person should be kept waiting for three months before the hearing of the charges proceeded. He mentioned that a report recently given him after a comprehensive survey of remand cases had been most reassuring. He was satisfied every effort was made by police and Court to ensure that justice was as speedy as possible. “Although this was an exceptional case,” Mr Hanan said, “I am considering how any further instances of undue delay can be prevented.” Bail was fixed in this particular case after accused had been in custody for three days, Mr Hanan said. However, release could not be obtained as the accused could not arrange the surety required by the Court.

“The question of fixing the conditions of bail is often a difficult one,” Mr Hanan said. “The Court must reconcile the right of the subject to personal liberty with the requirement of the law that accused persons appear to answer the charges brought against them. “It must be left to the discretion of the Court to decide in a case such as the one under discussion, what would be the minimum conditions of bail necessary to give a

reasonable assurance that the accused would appear before the Court on the adjourned date.

“After being told of the accused’s personal circumstances and past history, the Court was obviously of the view that the personal bond of the accused was an insufficient assurance of his later reporting for trial without the backing of a surety to the bond.

“If the Magistrate’s Court’s decision was considered unreasonable, the accused would know from his legal adviser that he could take the question of bail to a judge of the Supreme Court,” said Mr Hanan.