AMPLE SAFEGUARD

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 35, 11 February 1937, Page 17

AMPLE SAFEGUARD

PROFITEERING ACT/

NO RIGHT OF APPEAL'

On the grounds that-, sufficisnt safe* guards are provided, the Minister of Industries and Coinmercs (the Hon. p. G. Sullivan) is not prepared to provide the right of .appeal from the decision of a Magistrate under the Prevention of Profi-earing Act, according to advice received by the executive of the Associated Chambers of Commerce yesterday. •

It was reported that the association had taken exception to ths fact that ■the Act gave no right of appeal to a higher Court, evan though a person or company could be heavily finad under the Act, and a person imprisoned. The right of an aggrieved party to appeal to the Supreme Court was an important constitutional right which should not be lightly taken' away or even seriously infringed, especially where a person's estate cr liberty was at stake, and the view had been expressed that any departure from this salutary principle, and one right in general law, could oniy be regarded with disfavour, if not apprehension. ■.'■'_■. The Minister, in reply, said he was of opinion that the association was unduly apprehensive'of the'proposal. "In referring to the steps,'. imposed by the Act, that must be taken before any case of alleged infringement of the Act was brought before a'Magistrate, the Minister said it was provided that no proceedings could be commenced except by information laid by an officer of the Department: of Industries and Commerce, acting by direction of the Minister. Therefore, the Department must be satisfied on all" reasonable grounds that an offence had been committed. A further safeguard against any injustice was provided by the fact that the Minister -of'lndustries and Commerce had also to be'satisfied that an offence, in his opinion, had been committed. ■ '.:■ THIRD. SAFEIGUAkb. : "The third safeguard, said-the Minis; ter, was the Magistrate specially select^ ed and qualified for the position, who; with the responsibility of knowing that his decision was; final, would carefully sift the evidence submitted, and give most painstaking: consideration to all the circumstances applicable to each case. The Minister was not in agreement with the opinion- expressed by the association that "right of appeal in itself exercises a.steadying and restraining influence- on inferior tribunals, which is recognised by the highest constitutional authorities." He thought the reverse' was the case, • as it was reasonable.to assume that the Magistrate would be more meticulous .when he was placed in the position that no appeal to a higher Court was permissible. In the circumstances, the Minister was of opinion that there was no > necessity to- provide for appeals to a higher Court.

The meeting, while reaffirming its deep respect for the magistracy of the Dominion, and for the able, impartial; and painstaking manner in which it discharged its duties, decided to stress again the desirability of having the right of'appeal provided in the Act and in similar enactments.'/