Lawyer’s report on issues raised in Moyle inquiry

Press, 26 June 1978, Page 13

Lawyer’s report on issues raised in Moyle inquiry

An urgent need for changes to present laws is seen by a group of lawyers who have studied the Commission of Inquiry into the Moyle affair. The public issues committee of the Auckland District Law Society has compiled a report on various issues raised by the inquiry headed by Sir Alfred North. In particular, the group is concerned with Sir Alfred’s refusal to allow Mr C. J. Mayle to be represented by counsel during the inquiry.

In a preface to its report, the committee says it is completely autonomous and does not nec 4 essarily express the views of the Auckland District Law Society, which was nevertheless responsible far its appointment. Four questions are studied in the report:

(1) Sir Alfred’s right to refuse representation and whether it was legitimate. (2) His reasons for refusing representation and whether they were justifiable. (3) Recent developments in the law relating to representation at such inquiries; and (4) Whether a change is necessary to the existing legislation.

The first issue which the committee examines is Sir Alfred’s right to refuse representation. It says that accepted reasoning holds that a Commission of Inquiry is not a court of law, and does not decide issues but merely investigates them.

In reply, it cites legal precedent to show a distinction between an inquiry into a complaint against a person’s personal conduct, and an inquiry into a wider issue.

The North inquiry had “directly concerned” the conduct of Mr Moyle, it says, and “the con 4 sequence of an adverse report by a Commission of Inqdiry with such terms of reference could (potentially at least) be as serious as ruinous to reputation, and as lasting, as the sentence of any criminal court.” The subject of such an inquiry could need legal assistance to give his case fair representation. The committee con‘cludes this section of its

report as follows: “Given the nature of the inquiry and the passible consequences, it is arguable that (the absence of counsel) was a serious defect.”

It goes on to examine Sir Alfred’s reasons for refusing to allow Mr Moyle to be represented. Sir Alfred is quoted as saying that such representation would “encumber” the inquiry, and that the commission was merely investigating the issue, while the relevant material was largely a matter of record.

In reply to the reason of encumbrance, the committee says: “Surely it is more inconvenient that a man’s reputation should be seriously damaged than that a Commission of Inquiry should be “encumbered’.”

The “frailty” of the second reason (referring to the inquiry’s investigatory nature) had already been discussed, the committee continues.

The third reason puzzles the committee. While it agrees that Mr Moyle’s statements were a matter of record, it says the question . of interpreting and reconciling possibly conflicting statements was a difficult task.

Although legal represenation could be to the dis-

advantage of the person concerned as it might lead to a deeper probe than otherwise, the choice should be his.

The committee goes on to describe recent developments in the law relating to legal representation before inquiries. One present trend is that the courts are more ready to insist upon representation where a person “faces a hearing which could result in his losing his livelihood or that could ruin his reputation.”

The committee concludes that there is an “urgent” ..eed for amendment to the existing law, involving replacement of the relevant section.

It suggests that a new section contain the provisions that where a commission is investigating a person’s conduct, it should be understood that any person interested could be legally represented and could call witnesses. These rights should not be forfeit unless the commission decided there “strong

and compelling reasons,” and it should provide these in writing.

In any other type of inquiry, any person interested should have the same rights, so long as the commission thought proper.