GUIDE TO JUSTICES

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 August 1936, Page 4

GUIDE TO JUSTICES

ADDRESS BY MAGISTRATE “The Procedure of Justices When on the Bench” was the subject of an address by Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M., at a meeting of the Wellington Justices of the Peace Association, (says “The Dominion”). Mr. Stilwell compared the magistrate or the justice in the lowei' court to the referee at a Rugby football match. The scrum went down, the ball was put in (the referee had to see that it was put in fairly), and then he bad to see which half got the ball. When the ball came out the issue gainled momentum, and the referee had to watch its development. I The jurisdiction of justices, he said, was limited by statute both in civil and criminal cases. Also no justice could in law claim any superiority over any of his colleagues, no matter how long he had been a justice. The law considered all justices equal. Because the plaintiff had to file a, statement of claim, justices on the bench were in a position to understand the gravamain of the charge before the actual hearing, but there was no similar advantage concerning the defence, which generally developed as the hearing progressed. In this respect those presiding in the lower court were at a disadvantage compared with the posi tion of a judge in the Supreme Court, where, if he desired, he could make j himself conversant with both sides of, the case. It might be taken for granted said I Mr. Stilwell, that in 9!) cases out of 100 the plaintiff in civil cases must open. Justice should support !any request from counsel for the exclusion of witnesses from the precincts of the courtroom. The practice of excluding witnesses was an ancient one, dating; from before Christ. i

JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS I Ho warned justices against jumpingj to the conclusion that a witness was necessarily lying. It was possible for, witnesses quite honestly to tell differ-1 ent stories on the same set of facts.j,

It was the justices’ duty to weigh the probabilities. Having decided on the rights, it was then the kindest thing to say of those whose evidence was not believed, that they might have been mistaken. He gave directions as to how the examination of witnesses should be controlled, with particular stress on stopping counsel from intro- : ducing any new matter in re-examina-tions. ’ „ ~ “Find your facts,” Mr. Stilwell urged. “Never get your law and your facts mixed up. Ask yourself: “What ido I find? What is established? If ■ you get your law and your facts mixed there is no knowing where you may get to.” It was well to remember that I what shocked the conscience was usuali ly bad law. i ” Dealing with criminal cases, he j urged justices to be absolutely clear in their minds that the prosecution had established its case. If they were not satisfied that the case had been j established beyond all reasonable .'doubt, they ought to throw the case ' out without hesitation, and not call ‘on the defence. On no account should tflie defence be given the opportunity ’of building up its case on any admissions defendant may make when he went into the box. The prosecution must have established its case to the absolute satisfaction, of the justices, thus warranting the defendant being asked to give or call evidence. Justices, too, should be careful not to allow counsel, once the evidence had been given, to address the court ion the facts. That was not allowed. Counsel may address the court again ! on points of law, but not on the facts. I Provided, too, a magistrate or a justice had not entered up the record book, he could alter his mind, if he thought fit, from one of guilty to acquittal, but not from one of acquittal to guilty. He could also alter the quantum of punishment, either to increase or reduce. If one or two justices changed his mind, before the record book was signed, the decision could no longer stand.