JUSTICE’S JUSTICE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 14975, 22 April 1909, Page 9

JUSTICE’S JUSTICE.

TO THE XDITOR, Sir, —An unfortunate man was yesterday charged in the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court before three Justices, one of them being a retired police inspector. There were two charges, one that tho accused had no lawful visible means of support, and the other that he consorted with thieves and so forth. Both were taken together. The accused was undefended. “ Has he aliases?’’ said the prosecuting police officer. “Yes,” replied tho police witness, “ lie has nine.” That was a question which should neither have been asked nor answered. The Bench said nothing. “ That is the case,” said the prosecuting police officer. “ The accused is well known. There aro ton previous convictions against him. He does not belong to Christchurch.”

The accused’s record, I believe, was then handed in before he was called upon for his defence. This previous observation was a gross injustice to the accused, as it is well known that nothing should be said about previous convictions until the accused is convicted of tho charge upon which lie is being tried. This law is of such an elementary character that it might reasonably he supposed to have been within tho knowledge of any competent tribunal. The Bench said nothing. The accused having been prejudiced by the grossly unfair statement 1 ' of tho prosecuting police officer, then attempted to defend himself, and gave a very moderate explanation of his position. Again the prosecuting police officer implied by his questions that tho accused left Wellington because of his implication in garrotting cases. Ho said that there were numerous complaints of drunken men being assaulted and robbed since tho accused came to Christchurch-—an unproved, improper innuendo. No evidence whatever was given in support of these allegations. The good pleasure of the police was the only limitation to the aecusntions against tho accused. If they said ho had committed a murder, no doubt the Bench would still have accepted the statement in characteristic respectful silence. At the end of the caso the chairman announced that it was the unanimous decision of tho Court that the accused should be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. This astounding decision made hearers gasp, ub it was exactly four times tho maximum punishment. When the clerk of the Court had pointed out tho legal absurdity of tho decision, the Bench reduced tho sentence to six months—and were still wrong. Having no lawful, visible means of support and consorting with thieves and so forth are only alternative ways of stating tho same offences, the maximum. punishment for which is three months’ imprisonment. If the evidence was satisfactory, tho accused should have been convicted on one charge, and tho other should nave been then withdrawn. As it is, the man has received an illegal, excessive and invalid sentence. This is only a sample of what is being perpetrated weekly by amateur lawgivers, ignorant almost always of the first principles of police court law, and ignorant too frequently of the first principles of commonsense. Surely it is time such burlesques should he ended. There should ho a police magistrate who would try all cases. Amateur lawgivers desirous of airing themselves

would have ample opportunities at the mock trials of church debating societies. Tho caso under notice is certainly ono in which tho Minister of Justice should interfere.—l am etc., MAGNApArE MIR OR.