S.M. Explains Detention Of Remanded Man

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30739, 1 May 1965, Page 1

S.M. Explains Detention Of Remanded Man

A resume of the facts of the case concerning a man who was discharged without trial on a receiving charge after spending three months and a half in gaol was given in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday by Mr E. S. J. Crutchley, S.M.

“As there have been advanced criticisms through the press both as to the situation which occurred in the Magistrate’s Court and also as to the explanation given by the Minister of Justice (Mr Hanan),” said Mr Crutchley, “I think it is desirable that, as the Magistrate who dealt with the earlier remands, I should make public the whole detail of the matter.”

He said the man first appeared on December 18 last year at Timaru on the receiving charge.

It was alleged that the offence had been committed In Christchurch and he was remanded in custody for his appearance in Christchurch on December 21. On that date he was represented by counsel and a remand was granted by consent until after the Christmas vacation to January 14 this year. Bail was immediately allowed with one surety of £lOO together with a condition of daily reporting to the police. No Objection Mr Crutchley said that at that time r objection was made by the defendant or his counsel as to any term of the bail and no suggestion was made that a surety might not be found The defendant appeared on January 14 before a Magistrate and a further remand on bail was granted to January 21. No question as to the bail was raised. “The defendant again appeared before me on January 21.” said Mr Crutchley. “At that date defendant was advised by his counsel to apply for legal aid and a remand was sought until February 4, by which date fresh counsel had been appointed on assignment. At January 21 no objection had been raised to any term or condition of bail, which had always been renewed. “On February 4 the defendant appeared and his new counsel was informed that the first available date for the hearing of depositions was March 10. The reason for this delay was that a number of indictable cases had already been fixed for hearings during that period.” Obtaining Surety Mr Crutchley said that on February 4 the man’s counsel had said that difficulty might be experienced in obtaining a surety with the consequence that the defendant would have to remain in custody meanwhile. It was not stated that it was impossible to obtain a surety, as it was thought by counsel that the defendant’s parents might be prepared to act as surety. “At this point I explain

that it is not necessary for the surety to attend personally at the Christchurch Court,” said Mr Crutchley, “as the bail bond may be sent to the court where the surety resides, for convenience.” He said the remand to March 10, with bail renewed, was consented to. On that date the preliminary hearing was conducted before two Justices of the Peace. “1 am advised by counsel that he gave lengthy reasons to the Justices why the defendant should not be committed for trial,” said the Magistrate. “The Justices did not give an immediate decision but retired to give the matter consideration. They finally decided to commit the defendant. Found Wrong “At this point I pause to observe that the Justices gave the matter a full and proper hearing together with due deliberation upon the submissions of counsel. Their decision was found to be wrong by a Judge of the Supreme Court. “It will be well known to the public as well as to those concerned with the administration of justice that there are occasions when the decision of any court is found to be erroneous and the system of appellate courts is designed to enable any decision to be questioned and reversed if appropriate. “Before the Justices, counsel mentioned that it was unlikely that a surety could be found, and referred to the period defendant had been in custody. He also mentioned that although defendant had no fixed place of abode, he would be prepared to report twice or thrice daily. “Counsel indicated to his client that his opinion was that a Judge of the Supreme Court would be unlikely to allow an indictmentto be presented against him and that this question would probably be determined within two or three weeks from the date of the preliminary hearing. Reasons For Surety , “Although, I think, no court is bound to give public detailed reasons for the granting or refusal of bail, I think I should state the matters

which I took into account in requiring a surety in this case.

“I do so for two reasons—first that I consider the police were justified in asking for a surety and secondly because the same considerations together with the other matters I have mentioned were probably the ones which moved the Justices to retain the surety condition.” In the first place the man was charged with a serious offence for which he was liable to seven years’ imprisonment. In the second place he had had borstal training and had a list of criminal convictions —a conviction for theft in 1962 resulting in one year and a half probation, a conviction in 1962 for being idle and disorderly, upon which he was recalled to borstal training, convictions for burglary and taking a car in June, 1963, for which he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. and at the same time convictions on six charges of theft, 16 charges of burglary, two charges of interfering with a car and one of obscene language upon which he was convicted and discharged. The third matter, said Mr Crutchley, was that it had been stated to him that the defendant had no fixed place of abode. For those reasons he had agreed that a surety was necessary. J.P.s And Magistrate “So far as preliminary hearings are concerned,” said the Magistrate, “the position is and has been for some time in Christchurch, that justices of the peace usually take these hearings but there is a clear and standing arrangement with the members of the legal profession that if it is desired to have the hearing before a magistrate then a magistrate will conduct it. “In this particular case the defendant was represented by counsel, but no application was made to have a magistrate conduct the preliminary hearing. Counsel has been good enough to inform me that he did not consider it was a case which necessarily should be heard before a magistrate, which explains why no such application was made. “I should also say that although the Christchurch Bench had been short-staffed for some time, on no occasion

has any application for a hearing before a magistrate been refused or delayed to any appreciable extent.

Facts At Hearing

“Although it is perhaps unnecessary to do so, I think 1 should add that in this, as in any other case, the Magistrate’s Court knows nothing of the facts until the case comes before it for hearing. In a case where trial by jury is sought it is not until the depositions are taken that the facts upon which the prosecution rely become known to the Court.

“From this it will be seen,” said Mr Crutchley, “that at no time prior to the taking of the depositions could any Magistrate have known, and indeed it would not have been proper for him to inquire into, the facts of the case.”