Judge ‘erred’ in dismissing cases

Press, 24 October 1984, Page 4

Judge ‘erred’ in dismissing cases

. A District Court Judge had drred when he dismissed six traffic cases without hearing the evidence because too many : defended cases had been set down, Mr Justice Holland was told in the High Court yesterday. . . His Honour will give his decision this week on an application by the AttorneyGeneral on behalf of the Ministry of Transport to have the traffic charges reinstated and heard in the District Court. The Crown, represented by Mr N. ,W. Williamson, cited Noel Liam Bradford, a District Court Judge, as the first respondent, and William Hugh McMenamin, a solicitor, one of those who had traffic charges against him dismissed by Judge Bradford, as the second respondent. Messrs P. G. ;S. Penlington, Q.C., and J, G. Mathews appeared for Mr Bradford, who intimated through counsel that he would abide by the decision of the Court. Mr C. B. Atkinson, Q.C., appeared for Messrs McMenamin, Murray Turnbull and Terence Mortimer Joseph Hurley, Mr T. Allan for Jeffrey David Scott, and Mr M. J. Glue for Barbara Michelle Mayo. • Mr Glue said that no possible defence could have been raised for Mrs Mayo on the charge of careless use and on legal advice she had elected to plead guilty. When the Ministry of Transport was advised of that it had stopped the witnesses from coming to court. However, Judge Bradford had insisted that there be a hearing and when told that no witnesses were available he had dismissed, the charge. If the matter had been dealt with on a plea of guilty, Mr Glue said, he would have made submissions in mitigation of penalty. . When he arrived in the courtroom he was told that the charge had been dis-

missed, Mr Glue said. Mr Williamson submitted that the proper course for Judge Bradford would have been either to adjourn the casks or proceed with the hearing. Oh September 18 and, 25. six; traffic ’informations were hot heard by Judge Bradford because a large number of other fixtures were set down for those days, no other Courts were available and there was insufficient time to hear all matters. Alternative fixture dates were available for cases not reached oh ; those dates. Counsel for Mr McMenamin and others charged with traffic offences applied to Judge Bradford to have the informations dismissed on the basis that it was an abuse of the procedure of the Court to require the defendants to appear again on another day.. After considering the matter and relying on his inherent jurisdiction, Judge Bradford dismissed the informations. It was submitted that Judge Bradford was obliged to hear and to determine the informations in accordance with the provisions of the Summary Proceedings Act . and his failure to do so was an action without jurisdiction or was in excess of his jurisdiction. Judge Bradford was bound to either adjourn the hearings of the informations or to proceed with the conduct of the hearing. Under the Summary Proceedings Act he had no power to dismiss the informations for an abuse of the process of law. He had no inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the informations in the circumstances and his actions in doing so were unauthorised and invalid. In failing to afford the prosecution the opportunity to proceed on that date or at a later date Judge Bradford had acted in breach of the rules of natural justice. Judge Bradford had ex-

ercised his discretion to refuse adjournments unreasonably and took into account irrelevant matters relating to general administration of the courts. The Ministry sought a declaration that the dismissals made by Judge Bradford of informations against six defendants were made without jurisdiction or were invalid and sought orders that the charges be heard in the District Court in accordance with the law. Mr Williamson said that the essential facts did not appear to be in dispute. Fixtures with *an estimated time of 9% and 11 hours had been set down for September 18 and 25. In the light of previous patterns of changes of plea, non-attendance of defendants or further applications for adjournments the number of defended fixtures set down was not unreasonable, said Mr Williamson. Mr Atkinson said that far .too many fixtures had been set down which had led to cases being heard outside the normal court hours or to adjournments. The previous day Judge Bradford had sat until 9.30 p.m. so that the case of a man who had come all the way from Kaikoura could be dealt with. Had Judge Bradford heard all the cases which had been set down he would have been sitting until 11.30 p.m. What troubled him was that cases had to be adjourned for a further fixture which meant that defendants and witnesses had to return to court on another day. Judge Bradford had said: “This is not the way I want justice administered in my court,” and the only way he could give effect to change the system was to dismiss the charges. He was left with no practical alternative but to dismiss the charges, Mr Atkinson said. Mr Penlington made no submissions on behalf of Judge Bradford.