TEMPLES OF JUSTICE

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 138, 7 March 1929, Page 6

TEMPLES OF JUSTICE

PROCEDURE IN COURT THE WHY AND WHEREFORE

(By

A.O.H.)

“Remove that hat!” This is an order, uttered sharply by a police constable, that is frequently heard in the courts of law at Wellington. The offender in the public gallery to whom the remark is directed removes his hat hastily, with perhaps silent speculation as to why he is required to do so. Indeed, the average citizen is by no means familiar with Court procedure, as his affairs of life bring him little into contact with the temples of justice. For i' ' matter, there are many of righteous and admirable mind whose proud boast is that they have not been in Court in their lives, and who would consider their escutcheon irrevocably stained if the smallest conviction were entered against them. When speaking of the Court they do so in whispers, as of something indelicate. They picture the Courts as cold abysses where dark, cowled figures wrangle over reputations before a-high-er seat, and where strange rites prevail. To many others, the Courts are a hobby. They are the habitual hangerson who fill the body of the Magistrate’s Cor i daily. But this section of the public, influenced mostly by morbid curiosity. ( are more concerned with the “titbits” than with the machinery of the law. Consequently, the public are for the most part ignorant not only of the high function of the Court, but of its procedure, and often fail to comprehend “why such things are.” Trial By JuryFor one thing, the reason why an accused person appearing in the Magistrate’s Court is sometimes sent on to the Supreme Court instead bf being dealt with by the- Magistrate after he has heard the evidence, causes puzzlement. The reason why an accused person is so treated is because the Magistrate has jurisdiction in only certain of the cases that come before him. In these he may impose a fine, imprisonment, allow a period of probation to give an offender another chance, or dismiss the case as he deems fit, and according to tjie powers he possesses by the particular Act under which the prosecution has been On certain charges accused persons have the right of trial by jury. If the accused _ elects to be tried by a jury—which is seldom—the proceedings are transferred to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, if an accused person elects to be dealt with summarily—that is, by the Magistrate’s Court, the case is proceeded with under the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. In criminal offences—or “indictable” cases—the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction. However, the accused per-, son is first brought before a Magistrate or Justices of the Peace, and the evidence is heard and taken down on a typewriter. The proceeding is more or less of a formality. The evidence having been heard, the accused person is committed to the Supreme Court for trial or for sentence, according to whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. He is then admitted to bail or not, and the case is subsequently taken to the Supreme Court. Here, if he has pleaded guilty in the Lower Court, accused is sentenced, but if his plea is one of not guilty, all the evidence htard in the Lower Court is taken again for the benefit of the Judge, jury, prisoner, and Crown, and for the purposes of the trial. In one direction, however, the Magistrate or Justices of the Peace have jurisdiction before such a case leaves the Magistrate’s Court; they may throw the case out altogether, and not let it proceed, to the Supreme Court, if they are satisfied that the Crown has failed to establish a pritna facie case against accused —that is, has not shown sufficient grounds on which to proceed. In such event, the charge is dismissed,, and the accused discharged. The function of the Bench in this instance is similar to that of the Grand Jury in the Supreme Court, which returns a “true bill,” or “no bill,” thus determining whether the case against an accused person shall be proceeded with, or not. Grand Jury Question. In this connection the usefulness of the grand jury has been questioned. It is argued thus: If a Magistrate, whose business it is to be familiar with the law and its requirements, sees fit to al-, low a case to proceed to the Supreme, Court for trial why should a grand jury, composed of men not well equipped with a knowledge of the law —and of whom such knowledge’is not expected—have the power to overrule a Magistrate by returning a “no bill”? However, certain cases are sent on to the Supreme Court by Justices of the Peace. The grand jury is regarded in the; nature of a safeguard to prevent an injustice to an , accused’ and to save the country expense, by allowing a charge to be proceeded' with, when a prima facie case has not been established. Certainly it is not often that a grand jury returns a “no bill.” Broadly, offences against the law are divided into two classes, namely, “criminal” cases and . “misdemeanours.” Crimes, according to a definition, denote such offences as are of a deeper and more, atrocious dye, while offences of less consequence are known as misdemeanours. Cases are dealt .with according to the “atrocity of their dye.” For instance, theft charges involving uf> to £2 are decided by a Magistrate: un to £2O the accused has the right of trial by jurv: over £2O the case is one for the Supreme Court. All serious crimes are for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. ’ The Witness Box. It is sometimes with considerable trepidation that a citizen attends the. Court to give evidence as a witness. He is asked to take the Bible in his right hand and to “swear by Almighty God that the evidence he is about to give in the case before the Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” He may kiss’the Book in acquiescence, but- that is an old custom now obsolete, and all he needs to say is. “I do.” If he is Chinese and not a Christian he will take the oath by blowing out a lighted match, if a Jew be wjll swear with his hat on—whatever his god or gods or disbelief in any. he will swear by whatever he holds sacred 1 . Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for the Bench to remark that “somebody in this case is lying." Regrettably. the taking of the oath by a witness is not always an assurance that he will speak the truth. If he lies, however, and his lies can be brought home to him and his perjury proved, there is imprisonment provided as a penalty. A Magistrate or a Judge, however, soon becomes a keen judge of character, and not only -the nature of a witness’s evidence, but his manner of giving it is taken into account. Faltering, hesitation, self-contra-diction. evasion of questions, all ' are noted and gauged, and distinguished from the mere nervousness of the novitiate. It is not an easy matter to hoodwink a Magistrate or a Judge.