GIVEN MEDALLION

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 290, 3 September 1931, Page 11

GIVEN MEDALLION

Mr. I. Salek, Wellington SERVICES AS JUSTICE Jewel, Unique Distinction A high honour was conferred upon Mr. I. Salek, of Wellington, last evening, when lie was presented with a medallion, the first of its kind to be struck in the British Empire, by the Chief Justice. Sir Michael Myers, on behalf of the Federation of the New Zealand Justices’ Association. In making the presentation, his Honour said that he had seen the medallion, which was something worth haviug. It was a token of the esteem in which Mr. Salek was held by his fellow Justices throughout New Zealand, and it was a token of appreciation of the great services he had rendered Justices of the Peace all over the country. Mr. Salek had been responsible. he said, for forming in New Zealand a Justices’ Association, which had placed Justices of the Peace in the dignified position which they ought to hold. In handing the medallion to Mr. Salek, his Honour said: “I trust you will be long spared to wear it and enioy its possession.” ~ . Mr. Salek, in returning thanks, said he a , ”'reciated the handsome jewel which had been presented to him. It was the first medallion of its kind which bad been struck in auy part of the British Empire, and he was the first recipient of such a medallion. He went on to refer to the work of the association generally, and spoke in particular of its benevolent activities. In his concluding remarks. Mr. Salek suggested that the status of the Chief Justice in New. Zealand should be raised to that of Lord Chief Justice. Duties of Justices.

His Honour, in an address upon “Justices’ Duties,” said he wished to take the opportunity of thanking the association for electing him its president in succession to the late Sir Robert Stout, than whom, he said, neither justice of the peace nor prisoner had ever a kindlier or truer friend. A judge of the Supreme Court was in a sense a public man —a public man in the sense that whatever he said and did was said and done more, or less publicly and was subject to criticism, sometimes keen and vigorous criticism ; while in the case of the person who came within the ordinary category of a public man lie might speak as he liked, when he liked, as long as he liked, on any subject that he liked, and he might hit as hard as he liked and when hit he could hit back. That was the case of the ordinary public man. A judge, however, had to restrain himself, on all occasions, his Honour said. He had very few opportunities of expressing his opinions publicly, and when he did, he had to be discreet and circumspect. He had to be careful as to what he said, and to avoid carefully controversial subjects. The occasions on which he could speak publicly were few. One occasion was that of the commencement of a sitting when he had to address the grand jury, but even then,, speaking generally, he must confine himself to matters affecting the observance of the law and the administration of justice. Even then he was subject to criticism. For example, when he ventured to indicate how magistrates and justices should deal with a particular class of offender the suggestion was made that it was hardly proper for a judge, even though a Chief Justice, to attempt to direct minor judiciary officers on their functions.

Of course no judge ever attempted to to do anything of the kind, his Honour said. He himself had never attempted from his place in the Supreme Court to direct inferior judiciary officers as to what they should or should not do, except of course when matters which had been decided by an inferior court came before him by way of appeal. On Giving Advice.

“But, ladies and gentlemen.” . his Honour continued, “surely if the head of the judiciary, for the time being, is not entitled to make suggestions by way of advice to magistrates and justices, I ask you, who is? A Minister of the Crown is not entitled to do it. He would be pretty soon put in his place by the Press if he did, and properly so. The head of a department has no right to do it; but surely the head of the judiciary for the time being, is at least entitled to express his opinion and to offer valuable advice to magistrates nnd justices.” His Honour said that from time to time one heard the question of the usefulness of the grand jury as part of the legal system, debated. ' He wished to say that in his opinion the grand jury served a very useful purpose, and he hoped it would long remain as part of the legal system. There were several reasons why he himself thought that it would be very unwise to dispense with the grand jury. First of all one could not help being attracted by the antiquity of the grand jury system. He admitted at once that if the system had nothing more to recommend it than antiquity there would not be very much to be said in its favour. But there was this to be said in its favour: that it was a natural safeguard of the liberty of the subject; and personally he would very much prefer to see bills of indictment presented by a grand jury than by an attorney-general or any officer of the Crown or in any way other than the present method.

The person who came to the court as a grand furor was taking part in the highest duty of cit'zenship, the highest, privilege of citizenship, his Honour said.