Mix-up in court hearings

Press, 30 June 1982, Page 3

Mix-up in court hearings

An error by Christchurch court staff apparently led to the appearance of a man charged with arson for trial in the District Court, instead of the High Court, this week.

The trial came to an abrupt end yesterday when it was realised that arson is a crime which, as a result of an amendment to the Summary Proceedings Act, must be heard in the High Court. The defendant. Colyn David Stoves, had been committed for trial in the District Court on 33 charges, including four counts of arson, by Mr R. M. Naysmith and Mr V. C. Empson, J.P.s, after the hearing of depositions in April.

But Mr Naysmith said yesterday that he was well aware when the defendant appeared before them that the arson charges should go to the High Court. He had "slotted” these accordingly into his court list.

Mr Naysmith said he had then checked with court staff, and was shown a schedule which had not been amended and which showed that arson charges should be committed to the District Court. He had had to accept this. -

"The final responsibility is that of the Bench, but where it is a lay bench it should expect guidance from court staff.” said Mr Naysmith. • The Registrar of the District Court, Mr R.; B. Twidle, s?’d last evening that he acknowledged there had been

a mistake by court staff. The scedule shown to the Justices of the Peace had not been amended, but the matter had not been noted by the. defence solicitor or by the solicitor for the Crown. Mr B. M. Stanaway, the solicitor for the Crown, said there had been a “slip up.” Those involved, including himself, had missed the amendment to the act. Mr Stanaway said the Justice Department would have to pay the bill for the mistake. It was the same situation as having a retrial or a “hung jury,” he said. The trial had been scheduled .to last all this week, and 20 of 32 Crown witnesses gave their evidence on Monday. Asked whether publicity would prejudice the case’s being reheard in Christchurch, Mr Stanaway said: “Why should it?” The depositions had already attracted publicity. No statements made by" the defendant had been reached in the hearing, he said. Court report, page 4