ATTACHED TO SUMMONSES

Evening Star, Issue 21931, 18 January 1935, Page 12

ATTACHED TO SUMMONSES

MEMORANDUM BY POLICE OFFICER OBJECTION EXPRESSED BY COUNSEL Objection to the form attached to summonses by the police inviting the defendants to acquaint the senior sergeant of their intention of pleading guilty or not guilty was made by Mr E. J. Anderson in the Police Court today, when he suggested that some defendants were influenced, when they had a good case, to plead guilty to save incurring costs, the- position about which was not made clear on the memorandum.

When a charge against a young man was called, Mr Anderson said that he considered it counsel’s duty to draw the attention of the court to the apparent custom of attaching a memorandum to summonses. The first part read:—

“ I shall he glad if you will inform me as early as possible whether you propose pleading ‘ guilty ’ or ‘not guilty ’ to the charge against you.

While probably nothing should be attached to the summons, one could nqt take any objection to that part, said Mr Anderson. But it was followed by a paragraph to which strong objection should be taken:—

“If you are pleading ‘ not guilty it will be necessary to secure the attendance of witnesses, thereby incurring further costs.—Senior Sergeant.

Because of that paragraph there was nearly a short cut in this case by entering a plea of guilty, while, on the facts, His Worship would find that it was obviously a case for a plea of not guilty, said JVtr Andsrson. Th© statsment was not correct. If a defendant pleaded not guilty and the charge was not sustained, he was not mulcted in costs. In brief, the paragraph invited a defendant to plead guilty to make a short cut and to save costs. The memorandum was unsigned, although he did not know why the officer’s signature was omitted. It did not seem to be official in any way. After reading the memorandum, the magistrate (Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) said that it was sent out for the benefit 'of the defendant. At times it had been found that a man pleaded guilty, and witnesses’ expenses had been incurred as there had not been time to prevent witnesses from attending the court. The reference to the incurring of costs might well be left out of the memorandum. , • “ After all, it is the duty of the defendants to come to the court to plead,” said Mr Anderson. “The memorandum, it is appreciated, has helped them considerably, but I respectfully submit that the second paragraph is improper, I had the responsibility of saying in that case that it looked to be the .cheapest way to plead guilty. That is not good justice. A man should have the right to be heard, notwithstanding the costs. The whole paragraph is improper. In its present form it frightens a defendant who has $ perfectly good case. Anyway, the whole thing is not satisfactory. The only place in which the plea should be made is in this court, without any consideration of, expense. The present form suggests that a. plea of not guilty is made the costs will fall on the defendant.” ■ . . . The Magistrate: That is not the position, and it is not intended. The words “ thereby incurring further costs ” should be struck out. Senior-sergeant Packer: I shall take the direction of the court. . Mr Bundle said that when defendants appeared in court, whether they were represented or not by counsel, they were given the fullest opportunity of explaining matters, and in some cases he had permitted a plea of not guilty to be substituted for a plea of gU ]Vl r y Anderson: I appreciate that they get the fullest assistance and that they are assisted by the first part of the memorandum.