THE RETIRED JUSTICES.

Evening Star, Issue 11626, 10 July 1902, Page 3

THE RETIRED JUSTICES.

MR BARCLAY WANTS INFORMATION. THE MINISTER ACCEPTS FULB RESPONSIBILITY. [From Otra Pab.lia3ie.vtart PwEpobtex,] VTELLINGTON, July 10. It •was intimated in the Dunedin ‘ Star’ that Parliament would be asked lor an explanation as to why Messrs A. G. Christopher, S. G. Smith, and F. Mallard had been removed from the Commission of the Peace without being permitted an independent inquiry. The task of “ drawing ” the Minister of Justice was entrusted to the junior member for Dunedin, who had several questions on the subject on yesterday’s Order Paper. Mr Barclay began by asking on what, grounds the Minister of Justice hod advised His Excellency the Governor to remove from the Commission of the Peace the names of Messrs Mallard, Smith, and Christopher. In putting the question ho said that the curious feature in the case was that from the time when the removal of the three justices was 'first mooted until the present moment no one had over been informed upon what grounds the step had been taken. The Minister of Justice had never at any timo or at any place set out the grounds on which he had acted. No charge had ever been formulated, and an application for an independent tribunal to inquire into anv complaint which might have been made against them had been ignored. The position shortly put was this: 'The Minister had said in effect to the three justices : '‘La my opinion you ought to be removed from the Commission of the Peace. I make no charge against you; I say nothing further in respect to the matter." My ipse dixit is you must go, and I will hold no further inquiry.- ’ The question only asked on what grounds the Governor had been advised to act. It was no part of Ids (Mr Barclay’s) duty to say whether the gentlemen in question had in their judicial positions acted rightly or wrongly. He merely invoked this elementary principle of British justice, which recognised that no man should bo punished until he had been charged and given an opportunity of defending himself before an independent tribunal. Nor wos it right that the Minister should have the power to remove any person whatever from the Commission of the Peace without assigning cause, for that was the corollary that followed from his action. If that view were accepted, justices would be prevented from acting impartially and to the best of their judgment, for fear of being similarly dealt with when that judgment ran counter to the view put forward by the Crown Prosecutor. The member for* Dunedin then read from a treatise by the late Justice Johnson to the effect that justices were not to be removed from the Commission of the Peace without good and sufficient cause being disclosed.

The Minister of Justice said that Mr Barclay had travelled over ground which should be covered by the other questions on the Order Paper. He (the Minister) would be best consulting tho feelings of the House by replying to the question "just put. His reply was that the. justices had been removed on the grounds set out in the correspondence with them, and with which the hon. gentleman was no doubt fully acquainted.—(Laughter.) Mr Barclay next asked if tho Minister had at any time made any charge of misconduct of any sort against the justices hi question? The Minister had referred to the correspondence on the subject. He. (Mr Barclay) did not know whether ho had the whole of the correspondence by him or not. but he certainly had copies of some of tho letters. He would like to know whether the Minister had any objection to laying the whole of the correspondence relating to the matter on the table. Without wearying the House he would like to read a letter of one of the justices when invited by the Justice Department to tender his resignationo. (Mr Christopher’s letter, which was read, was published in the ‘Star’ at the time.) The Minister had refused to grant an independent tribunal, and had assumed the right to remove from the Commission any justice at his own sweet will. The Minister of Justice : My reply to this question is that I have made no charge of misconduct against these justices. Mr Speaker: Mr Barclay to ask another question. ' Mr Barclay said that the answer just given cleared the way very greatly for his next question, which was; Does the Minister hold the view that he is justified in advising the removal of any justice of the peace from the Commission without making any (jharge against any such, justice, or holding any inquiry into any complaint made against such justice? The Minister had undoubtedly exercised his power of removal. Tbe Hon. Mr M'Gowan; I hold thc-view that I am justified in recommending the removal of any justice should the circumstances, in my opinion, warrant such a course being taken. Mr Speaker: Mr Barclay to ask still another question.—(Laughter.) Mr Barclay said that the question was this: Did the Minister hold the view that he was justified in advising the removal of justice .of. the peace from the Com-

mission' without making any charge against any such justice, or holding any inquiry into any complaint made against such justice? He put it in all seriousness to members whether the attitude the Minister had taken up—that he had the power and the right, and would exercise that right, to dismiss any justice of the peacq, if in Ids opinion alone the circumstances warranted it—was a position that in a constitutional Assembly and in a constitutional country a Minister ought to be allowed to take up? He submitted that it was not a proper position for the Minister to take up. The result of it would be found to be Ibis; that in every' case in which the Crown was interested, the justices before whom it was heard must be biased in their decision, knowing (as they would) that if their decision were adverse to the Crown the Minister might remove their names from the Commission of the Peace without making any charge against them, and without holding any inquiry into their conduct, and of course without offering them any proper chance of vindicating themselves. Was that right, or was it wrong? He understood that reports were asked from and furnished by the two stipendiary magistrates and the Crown Prosecutor. • These reports were to a certain extent secret reports. It was a proceeding that almost reminded one of the Dreyfus case—to compare small things with great. No one had seen the reports but the Minister. Application had been made to the Minister to allow the reports to come to light, but so far no one had been allowed to see them The position was that the Minister of Justice, acting on secret reports, had removed these three names from the Commission of the Peace, and had therebv inflicted upon the men as grave a degradation as it was possible to inflict upon them, without making any charge against them, without holding any inquiry into their conduct, or giving them any opportunity of showing to the public whether thev had been iustly treated or not. ' J The Hon. Mr ATGowan said in reply that reports were furnished by the two stipendiary magistrates at the' request of the Munster, and they merely gave a narrative ot the proceedings, and did not contain any expression of opinion. In fairness to these magistrates, he asked the permission \r vr read the correspondence. Air Alallard did not ask for a copy of the reports, but the other two justices did. Ibe correspondence was hero read. On February 25 the Under-Secretary for Justice wrote to Messrs Caxew and Graham, l°l- a jomt re P° rt on tho recent tote betting prosecutions, with particular reference to the action of the jSes cf the peace who took part m the hearing of c ?f es ' Mr Carew, in reply, explained that the cases-there were fifty-nine separate informations—came on for hearing on when Graham, An ri, M ! SSr u S ' G ' Smith ’ W - Belcher, rices of and F ‘ Mallard ’ 3 US ‘ nces of the peace, occupied the bench. Tne only case called on occupied a coni siderable time, and was dismissed. All the other cases were adjourned to December 5. A considerable amount of correspondence appeared in the newspapers which m unusualexperience of so many justices sitting upon a d-iv Sde ted “f» r 3 rJ tipe^diary ‘to preside. On December 5, a Thursd-iv ” c»nturned Mr Carew, “my usual day for tokmg the Police Court, Mr Smith caL to to sifto 6 tf pf “J? * at he would Bke to sit in the Pobco Court with me in the told v Tf ?T* if 1 had no objection, 1 told him that he or any justice had a right to s!t m the court, and I could have no id° bjeC A, 0n ;-n. - 1 li€lieve that Mr Smith told me Mr Christopher also intended i Slt Ar A A the r ‘PPomted time Air Smith and , Mr Christopher joined mo on the Bench, and three of the tote cases against Grant were dealt with. On February 21 the to to cases again came on for hearing, Messrs Smith And Christopher sat ,j m< V and ' vras necessary that thev should do so to decide the case wo had heard o n December 5, in which wc had reserved our decision pending the appeals. Ihe very clear judgment of Air Justice Williams satisfied me that there was also evidence in this case in which we could convict. There was no doubt in my mind that the bet was a tote bet, but tho justices both disagreed with me, and the case was therefore dismissed. Another case was then heard, with a like result, and was also dismissed. I then intimated to tho justices that it was hopeless to expect that wo would agree, and I would retire from thr13ench. and leave the responsibility entirely with them. Air Fraser immediately afterwards said that he was not then prewired to go on further, and the unheard cases were adjourned to Thursday, March 6. Air Graham, in a separate report, endorsed Air Carew’s remarks, and, in conclusion. made this pointed observation; . * may state that it is most unusual for justices to sit at the same time as the >S.AI. ipt regularly on Alonday. Wednesday, ana Friday, Air Cartrw on the Thursday leaving Tuesday and Saturday for the justices, who sit regularly, as they are summoned by the clerk, who has an alphabetical rota. Ido not recollect more than one previous csisc where justices have sat with me since I have been acting as S.AI.” The Alinister continued: He wished to say. in reference to the matter, that he was aware that comments on the case had been published throughout the country, as stated by the hon. gentleman who had asked the question, and he further wished to say that he had no personal knowledge of anv of the gentlemen affected. So far as he knew, he had only met one of them on one occasion. so that in his dealings with these particular justices of the peace ho was not actuated by persona! bias; neither bad he been influenced by either of tie two stipendiary magistrates, or by the Crown Prosecutor, as had been implied. Two of these justices had been cautioned for ihe course they had pursued on a previous occasion. In acting as he had done he had taken the responsibility that attached to the position be held as Alinister of Justice, and bo abided by that responsibility.— (Hears.) If the House desired it he'liad no objection to laying all the papers and correspondence on the table. He did not wish to say anything that would injure anv of the three justices. He had given them every opportunity to retire, hut from the position they had taken up in the administration of justice ho was justified in the course bo had taken. He was quite prepared to take the responsibility, and to give reasons for his action in this case. Those reasons ho would give to the House if called upon, for it was to tho country fhnf he was responsible for anything of the kind. He did not know that ho could say anything more, for he was not anxious to intensify tho feeling that had been aroused. He was quite aware that this was a serious matter for the gentlemen concerned, but there were only two courses open to him—either to overlook what appeared to him to bo an interference with the course of justices, or to act as he had done—and he had taken what he considered to be the proper course. This closed Air Barclay’s series of questions, but Mr O’Meara gave notice of his intention to ask the Minister of Justice “ If the Air Christopher whose name the Aiinister has recently removed from tho justice list is the same gentleman whom I asked tho Alinister to remove from the list some months ago?”