Awareness boost after challenge: probation officer

Press, 12 June 1986, Page 8

Awareness boost after challenge: probation officer

PA Auckland An Otahuhu probation officer believes only good can come from his challenging of remarks made by a District Court judge. Speaking yesterday after being discharged on a count of contempt of court, the officer, Mr Tuterangi Sadler, said that his stand against what he considered culturally offensive comments had at the very least created a public awareness. "People from all quarters now seem to be a lot more aware of what Polynesians can be up against as a result of this particular incident.”

Mr Sadler, aged 29, was held to be in contempt of court when he spoke out against comments made by Judge Duncan during the sentencing of a young Maori woman in the District Court at Otahuhu on Tuesday. He was remanded on bail to appear yesterday. More than 100 people who packed the court’s public gallery today responded to Mr Sadler’s discharge with an impromptu haka. Maori prayers and singing filled the courtroom before the hearing. In a show of support, staff at the Otahuhu probation office will stop

work this afternoon to attend a meeting at the Race Relations Office. They have described as provocative and offensive Judge Duncan’s remarks in the sentencing of Rita Wells, aged 20, to 14 months imprisonment on receiving and breaching charges. The probation officers have called on the Attor-ney-General, Mr Palmer, to provide transcripts of sentencing statements made by the judge during the last two years. Mr Sadler, a probation officer for eight months, said he had stood on a point of principle, and would do so again. He realised, however, that legally his protest had been out of order. Mr Sadler said that at the time he believed he was acting within his professional brief, as outlined in the new Criminal Justice Act. "It turns out that technically I was wrong, but morally I feel I was right. “There was a principle at stake, and, regardless of the ramifications, I decided to make a stand.' "My interpretation of the judge’s remarks was that they were derogatory.” Mr Sadler said he had encountered a similar situation in court late last

year, but because of his relative Inexperience, decided to “bite my tongue.” He added, "I just let it go, as I did not really know where I was placed legally. "If the same sort of comments were made again, I do not think I would stand up in court, but would perhaps approach the judge in chambers.” In discharging Mr Sadler, Judge Duncan said he considered the defendent had wilfully interrupted the court and was, therefore, in contempt. Mr Sadler had been told to be seated but had continued to disturb the court, whereupon he was taken into custody. “I regard you as having done what you chose to do with excessive enthusiasm.” Judge Duncan said he felt that the brief time Mr Sadler had spent in custody, coupled with his having to sign a bail bond, constituted a sufficient penalty. “You are now to be discharged without any further action being taken.” Dr Bill Hodge, representing Mr Sadler, submitted it was the defendant’s earnest belief that he was acting within the bounds of his duty.