Much room for criticism found in courts

Press, 25 May 1977, Page 6

Much room for criticism found in courts

Wide-ranging criticism of Christchurch magistrates and court conditions and procedures was heard by members of the Royal Commission on Courts yesterday. “Some magistrates, judges, or other persons become unfit through work or other stresses to continue making the decisions that, in better times, they had been able to make,” said the warden of th e Brisbane Street Detention Centre (Mr H. Walters). He said that on several occasions some magistrates had ■ failed to grasp situations that [were clearly presented to them, and that they did not present a good image to the public. A probation officer (Ms D. Crossan) suggested that magistrates and justices of the peace should do some training after their appointment, and visit the institutions that they would send persons to.

The state of the courts and facilities for the public and court officials were referred to frequently during submissions.

The magistrates did not have suitable court rooms to sit in, and the rooms lacked modern design and had inherent problems with light and sound, said Mr Walters. There was a complete lack of security, no telephones for public use, and toilet facilities for both sexes were “a disgrace.” A survey conducted by the National Council Of Women showed that court conditions throughout New Zealand were often considered inadequate. At Matemata, there was nowhere to wait inside, just a small porch. Everyone sat outside in cars, or on a surounding wall, or stood on a street corner, the commission was told.

The physical structure of court rooms was also considered. Ms Crossman said that persons stood in the (dock whether they had i pleaded guilty or not, and faced the back of their lawyer, while the magistrate sat some distance away in an elevated position. In matters concerning court procedure, Ms Crossan said that probation officers believed that before a defendant pleaded, he should be given the police statement of facts and adequate time to read it. She said that remands were

too long. “It seems to take at least a month between the first appearance and the sentencing, even on pleas of guilty.” Probation officers thought that more magistrates were needed, that lawyers and police should be asked to justify remands sought, and that defendants should be given a specific time to attend court, rather than arrive at 10 a.m. then wait about, sometimes for most of the day. A young woman, whose name was suppressed, told the commission that she had been raped last year and had subsequently appeared in court.

She said that a rape complaintant should be allowed to give evidence in a closed court and her home address should never be read out in front of the accused. The complainant would feel less intimidated if she could sit outside the witness-box, she said. Mention was made several times that methods of taking down evidence were often distracting. “The recording of evidence by typewriter in the Supreme Court is surely unsatisfactory.” said Mr J. F. Burn, a Christchurch solicitor. “It slows up every witness action, thus making the cost of running the court much

higher, for less work is put through,” he said. Other court practices also received attention.

“Sentencing by magistrates in Christchurch is always less severe than at other large centres. Not only is the sentencing less severe, but it is also inconsistent,” said Mr Walters.

Too often sentencing was “negative,” with many of the convicted persons receiving minimal fines or concurrent periodic detention sentences which often meant only a slight extension of their present term of periodic detention, he said. Evidence was given to the commission that many of those before the court found the “legal jargon” used completely incomprehensible. “Legal language was felt by many of our members to be an unnecessary complication in court procedures,” said the spokeswoman for the National Council of Women (Mrs D. Horsman).

A recommendation from a woman in Waihi said: “If legal language is actually: found to be necessary, care should be taken to ensure that the defendant understands both the expression and its implications.” Wigs and gowns worn by lawyers were singled out for attention and described as “ridiculous” by Mrs Horsman. She was supported by Mr

Burn, who said that “the day of the wig and gown must surely have gone.”

Counsel were criticised, too. “Counsel usually do little or no homework on their client and rely on receiving a probation officer’s report on which to base their submissions on the day of the hearing,” said Mr Walters. “We have received frequent complaints of the attitude adopted by some lawyers towards the clients, again chiefly in matrimonial cases,” said Mrs Horsman.

Earlier in the day, members of the commission visited the Christchurch courts to see the conditions. They were faced with peeling paint hanging from the ceiling and walls of one commonly used courtroom, and the party had to tread carefully over chipped flooring. The stench of gas filled many rooms. They saw the other side of the courts, too — the redecorated rooms in the old Magistrate’s Court buildings and the plush Supreme Court with its carpet and comfortable seating. Members were - shown a model of a new court complex to be completed in five stages. The first stage, which! will house the law library, the! registrars to the Supreme Court, and the Magistrate’s Court and its staff, is expected to be completed next year.