FINE DEFAULT

Evening Star, Issue 23352, 23 August 1939, Page 17

FINE DEFAULT

PRISON ALTERNATIVE NOT MANDATORY SUMMARY PENALTIES BILL INTRODUCED HUMANITARIAN CHANGES IN LAW 1 1'iiOM out." Pahi.iamkntahy lli:roirn:ii. J AVKLUXGTON. August 22. The usual practice in the courts of fixing a period of imprisonment as the alternative to payment of the fine imposed is to be abolished when the Summary Penalties Bill is passed. It was introduced in the House by Governor’s Message, in charge of Mr Mason (At-torney-General). If the court imposed a fine, explained tin' Attorney-General, the intention was that the fine should bo collected and that there should bo no imprisonment. If imprisonment was the intention of the court, it should be inflicted in the first instance. Therefore, the measure provided that no alternative of imprisonment should be noted when a fine was inflicted, and that further investigation should be made before -a defendant could be committed for default of paying a fine. There would, he added, be one or two exceptions, the chief being drunkenness. The purpose of the Bill was humanitanian. ]t followed the English precedent as well as the course frequently followed in New Zealand by magistrates, Who were in the habit of considering applications for extension of the time in which to pay a fine. Mr Coates (National, Kaipara) asked what would be the position of a man who definitely avoided paying a fine for years. Would it go oh according to the Kathleen Mavoureon ’ principle? Would there be no other penalty ? . The Minister replied that this would not be the case. There was no idea of permitting people to escape a penalty, but the Bill had the humane idea of avoiding the imprisonment of people because of their poverty. There is a general sentiment to-day against sending people to prison if it can be avoided,” concluded the Minister; “and the Bill will only liavo the disadvantage of giving people a little more trouble.” The Bill, which was formally read a second time and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee, shows that it is intended to permit payment of a fine by instalments, if necessary, and that further proceedings must be taken by way of distress warrant before any term of imprisonment can be fixed. The Bill fixes the scale of imprisonment. It ranges from two days where the sum does not exceed £1 three months where it exceeds £2O. The offences of drunkenness and drunk iu„ charge of a vehicle or while in possession of firearms are excluded from tho provisions of the measure. SOME DETAILS.

The measure is to come into force on January 1, 1940. The Bill is described as an Act to amend the Justices of the I’eace Act, 1927, in relation to penalties imposed on summary conviction or by orders of justices. In imposing fine, justices are required to consider, among other things, the means of an offender. Restrictions are imposed on the imprisonment of persons' under 21 years of age, as no such person, is to be imprisoned for non-payment of a fine unless the justices or magistrates are satisfied that no other • method of dealing with the offender is appropriate. In imposing a fine justices may allow time for payment, or permit payment by instalments. When provision is made for payment by instalments justices may order that the offender be placed under the supervision of a probation officer or any other person they may appoint until the sum is paid. This course is made mandatory in the case of offenders under 21 years of age, unless the justices’ are satisfied that it is undesirable or impracticable to place the person concerned under supervision. Exception to the general rule for avoiding imprisonment is made in the cases of drunkenness. If the fine is not paid within the stipulated time, any justice may issue a distress warrant for the purposes of levying the amount of the fine, or so much of it as is not paid. Justices‘may issue the distress warrant immediately, or may order imprisonment if satisfied that the defendant is of sufficient means to pay the fine forthwith, has no fixed place of abode, or that the gravity of the offence, the character of the offender, or other special circumstances justify the demand for immediate payment.

Imprisonment may bo ordered by a magistrate where an offender is found, after reasonable inquiry, to haye insufficient means to. satisfy a distress warrant. The magistrate is also empowered to reduce the amount under the distress warrant, or to direct that imprisonment be postponed or waived.