Five traffic cases reinstated

Press, 26 October 1984, Page 4

Five traffic cases reinstated

Five of the six persons who had traffic charges against them dismissed by Judge Bradford in the District Court will face the same charges again before a different Judge, Mr Justice Holland has directed in a reserved decision given in the High Court yesterday.

The dismissal of a charge of careless use against Jeffrey David Scott will stand because a witness he was to call at the defended hearing has since gone to Australia. Judge Bradford dismissed the traffic cases on September 18 and 25 when the number of defended fixtures set down for that day could not all be heard.

The Attorney-General acting on behalf of the Ministry of Transport applied under the Judicature Amendment Act to have the dismissed traffic charges reinstated and the application was

heard on October 23. Mr N. W. Williamson appeared for the AttorneyGeneral, Messrs P. G. S. Penlington, Q.C., add J. G. S. Mathews for Noel Liam Bradford, who was cited as the first respondent, Mr C. B. Atkinson, Q.C., for William Hugh McMenamin, a solicitor, Murray Turnbull and Terence Mortimer Joseph Hurley, persons whose traffic charges were dismissed, Mr M. J. Glue, for Barbara Michelle Mayo and Mr T. J. Allen for Jeffrey David Scott. The traffic charges against all defendants were dismissed without a hearing and the Ministry of Transport submitted in the High Court that the dismissals were made without jurisdiction or were invalid and that orders be made that the informations be heard and determined in accordance with the law in the District Court. “One must start with some sympathy for Judge Bradford who on the face of it had fixtures before him on each day that would be expected to take twice the time available,” Mr Justice Holland said.

The previous day Judge Bradford had sat until 9.30 p.m. because of a defendant who came from Kaikoura. A Judge should not be rostered with cases requiring him to preside from 10 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. In an affidavit the Registrar of the District Court said the result of a survey of 14 defended traffic fixture days in 1984 showed that less than half the cases were actually heard. Of 189 cases set down 54 changed their plea to guilty, 16 withdrew the defence so that formal proof was all that was required, 17 were adjourned, 17 were withdrawn by the prosecution and eight warrants for arrest were issued because the defendants failed to appear. Only 77 of the 189 cases were heard as defended fixtures. Apart from the one instance mentioned, the latest sitting of the court in 393 days was 5.45 p.m. When giving his reasons for dismissing the informations Judge Bradford was highly critical of the Ministry of Transport in setting down more fixtures than could be heard. On each occasion he had

referred to the surrender of sovereignty in the Courts to the Ministry of Transport and to the police and on one occasion indicated that the administration had given the prosecution free reign with Court time. That was clearly an exaggeration. There might well be room for improvement in the present system but it had substantial advantages and convenience to the public over the system which it replaced many years ago when the prosecution were required to attend with their witnesses on the first day set down for hearing not knowing whether the charge would be defended, adjourned or proceed on the day. Undoubtedly the ideal would be some form of appointment system but it could not be introduced without the doubling of the number of Judges and a consequential substantial increase in court staff.

More than 50 per cent of the civil actions set down did not proceed. So long as human nature remained what it was and decisions on litigation were not made until the last minute, some inconvenience had to be

caused to the public and all concerned with the administration of justice.

It was desirable that a system be provided which caused as little inconvenience to the public as possible, consistent also with the administration of justice and consideration as to costs.

“This Court is conscious of the frustration that Judge Bradford must have felt in a busy Court when he considered the work had not been arranged so that it was capable of speedy and convenient disposal. He was no doubt aware of public criticism to that effect,” said his Honour.

Ideally prosecutions should be brought and heard as quickly as practicable and excessive delay was likely to prejudice the prosecution as well as the defence. There were substantial delays and some inefficiency in criminal proceedings both before ahd at trial. All concerned had to do their utmost to bring criminal proceedings before the Court and to a conclusion as swiftly and efficiently as possible, but the law did not allow in circum-

stances such as were before Judge Bradford, for cases to be dismissed out of hand without hearing the evidence on the grounds of an alleged injustice. The prosecution has the right to be heard as does, the defendant and the Summary Proceedings Act so provided. He was clearly of the view that Judge Bradford had acted without jurisdiction when he dismissed all the informations.

"Litigants must inevitably suffer some inconvenience but it is not a sufficient ground for this Court effectively to refuse to make an order that the law should take its course," said Ms Honour.

After outlining the circumstances in Mr Scott’s case, his Honour said that the witness was now in Australia and was not likely to return to New Zealand for some time. In those circumstances he was satisfied that justice required the Court not to interfere even though the dismissal was wrongfully made.

It was not an appropriate case for an award of costs, said Mr Justice Holland.