Lawyers question J.P.s powers

Press, 26 March 1981, Page 4

Lawyers question J.P.s powers

Some Christchurch lawyers . are dissatisfied about certain powers Justices of the Peace have in court cases.

The chairman of the New Zealand Legal Association, Mrs M. R. Evans, said last evening that although Justices performed a valuable service relating to minor offences there was some concern among members of the association in Christchurch about the. way they handled some court cases. " Specifically there was concern about the handling of bail applications by Justices sitting in court on Saturday mornings. The association also felt that questions about admissibility of evidence raised during depositions hearings cpuld not be dealt with -adequately by Justices. ;

The Chief District Court judge, Judge D. J. Sullivan, suggested last week-end that the jurisdiction of Justices could be increased, the Press Association reports.- He told Justices at their annual conference that there was no reason why they should not preside over preliminary murder hearings. He said he was anxious that Justices exercise their full jurisdiction. Mrs Evans rejected a suggestion by the president of the Auckland District LawSociety, Mr Edward Thomas, that more extensive training and education could be provided for Justices. She said that the Legal Association . would not favour any broadening in the jurisdiction of Justices. They functioned .well ' in minor matters where they.

could bring to bear commonsense notions of fairness.

The Legal Association would have serious reservations about the provision of courses of education to enable Justices to deal more readily with cases: involving legal issues. It took a long time to produce a good legal mind and that was what was needed to decide legal issues, she said.

Mr Thomas had said in Auckland that without professional training or background it was too easy for Justices to approach a case with some predisposition in favour of one side. The situation could be contrasted with the United Kingdom where lay magistrates were helped by a highly qualified registrar. The president of the

Canterbury District. Law Society, Mr P. G. Hill, said that none of. the local members

of the profession echoed the complaints from Auckland, because Justices in Christchurch did not sit in traffic courts.

Mr Hill said that a small panel of Justices undertook a limited class and volume of work, such as Saturday morning remand hearings and less serious depositions hearings. “As far as I can ascertain there have been no complaints from members of the Christchurch’ profession about the Justices’ work. People think they do their job quite competently,” he said. Justices in Christchurch were given some training before they sat in court, and because only a small group

did all the work, they became quite experienced, he said.

Some lawyers have complained to the Auckland District Law Society that the chances of a defendant’s being acquitted depend on

which day of the week he appears in court. One law firm ' told the society of an “apparent willingness” with which Justices accepted a traffic officer’s evidence rather than the defendant’s, evidence. The firm said, "There appeared to be a serious disparity between standards of onus of proof adopted by certain Justices.” The society agreed that attention should be drawn to the “dangers of increased use of Justices”- in court , ’