Hearing of evidence not necessary

Press, 10 June 1978, Page 4

Hearing of evidence not necessary

PA Wellington A police summary of facts need not be read to a Magistrate’s Court when a defendant pleads guilty to an indictable offence, Mr Justice O’Regan has ruled in the Supreme Court at Wellington. After questions about the effect of an amendment to the Summary Proceedings Act in 1976, his Honour said this provided that an accused could plead guilty j without the hearing of evi-| dence. and be committed to the Supreme Court for sentence He said he had been asked; to state his views for the t guidance of the police, court! officials, and, to some ex-1 tent, magistrates. Robert Stephen Craig, aged 31, a hairdresser, who had pleaded guilty under the new procedure to a charge of aggravated robbery, appeared before his Honour for sentence. Craig’s counsel (Mr P. F. Boshier) said that when the plea was taken in the lower

i court, the Magistrate order-! ed that the police not read ■ the summary of facts. The - Magistrate said they were • solely the province of the i Supreme Court, and counsel I agreed. i The press subsequently ■ objected to the ruling. The case was recalled, Mr Bosh-; : ier said. The Magistrate, ' having closely considered! i the legislation, then advised; I that his prior ruling may ! have been in error, and “ruled that a copy of the ; summary be made available i to the press. The content of the sum-; mary then came in for con-

sideration, as much of it did not refer to the facts of the offence, but to Craig’s private circumstances. The Magistrate suppressed the publication of the first two pages of the summary. His Honour said that in his .view it was quite clear that under the new procedure, when the lower-court formalities were completed,; the Court was “functus offi-

|cio” (its authority had ended). ! There was no point in the prosecutor reading the sumi mary of facts and the Court had no power to hear it. The Magistrate’s Court (had no need for possession of the facts, as all relevant i material was before the Supreme Court. ! His Honour said that in jthe present case a detective sergeant had gone to the trouble to prepare a very full summary of the facts, not only of the offence, but ; also of the personal history of the accused. His Honour commended him for his dili-

I gence. ;■ The Crown Prosecutor had a duty as counsel to put all relevant material before the I [Supreme Court and on no other canon than that of fairness. i Craig was sentenced to 1 ! four years jail for robbing ■ the National Bank at Naenae . of $2173, on April 20, by [holding up a teller with a .replica pistol. He admitted a 'charge of aggravated robibery.