Lake Wakatip Mail. QUEENSTOWN, FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1886.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 1525, 2 April 1886, Page 2

Lake Wakatip Mail. QUEENSTOWN, FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1886.

Tiie Criminal Code Bill—which, aft**r having been introduced and passed by the Legislative Council last session, was read a second time in the House of Representatives but not further proceeded with—will, we understand, be brought in again this year. It is a measure of supreme importance, affecting the principles as well as the administration of criminal law, and purporting to define, by statute, much of that law which in this colony remains unwritten. The form in which it was cast is that in which the same Bill was reported from the Joint Statutes Revision Committee of 1883, the original draft having been prepared with great lat>or and care by the Commission appointed under "The Revision of Statutes Act, 1879," which specifically enjoined the Commissioners (Mr Justice JoxnsToy and the Soiicitor-Ceneral) "to I examine and report on the Biil lately intro--1 ( duced into the New Zealand Parliament to - eutabliah * oode of indictable ©tfewces and the

procedure relating thereto," and, "if they think fit, to adapt the said Bill for enactments by the General Assembly." The design of that Bill, now passed into law, may briefly be stated to be to place on the statute book what is known as the unwritten criminal law of England, and the code on which it is based has received the greatest possible attention in the Home country. The Bill, as we have stated, will be re-introduced, and is almost a counterpart of the English Act, wliich must be accepted as nearly perfect in its way; the main features being in accordance with the recommendations of a Royal Commission appointed in 1878, which composed the most eminent criminal lawyers of the day, who, before settling the report, submitted the draft to the judges and the highest authorities on criminal law.

The report on the criminal code, with which the Statutes Revision Commissioners preface the original draft 3 of the Bill, affords a very clear comprehension of its principles < and geneial tenor. They are not prepared, they state at the outset, to undertake the responsibilities of expressing a decisive opinion of the propriety of adopting at once I the English Bill of 1880, with the necessary i modifications; being of opinion that it would j be better to defer the enactments of the code j in the colony till the English Parliament has j finally dealt with the subject; "but as the i General Assembly may think it desirable to j proceed with the matter without further I delay, we have prepared the draft Bill an- J nexed hereto, founded on the English Bill of j 18S0, and we proceed to report on its general j scope and provisions." It may be assumed, they affirm, that the Bill of 1880 has the sanction of the approval of the highest legal j

authority short of that of the whole judicial bony of England. The alterations, omissions, j additions, and modifications suggested in the j attempts to draft the measure to the circum- ! stances of the colony will, however, they j consider, require most careful scrutiny, and j ought not to be adopted without full con- I sideration. Proceeding to indicate the ! general scope of the Bill of 1880, and the , proposed New Zealand code, they, in the first | place, point out what the Bill contains and what it does not contain. In the main it deals only with offences other than indictable crimes. "The measure has no pretension to be a complete and exhaustive declaration of the whole of the criminal and penal law." The promoters of the English Bill, were well aware, say the Commissioners, that to prepare a code containing all the provisions existing in the English statutes for the defining ion and punishment of offences punishable on summary conviction, as well as on indictment, would, if not impossible, be a work of

such magnitude, and the result such a mass of heterogenous matter, that it would be a practical failure. The object was, therefore, to produce "a collection of lucid and intelligible definitions, derived both from the common law and the statutes, of the ordinary crimes punishable on indictment, and to arrange, collect and amend the rules of procedure in such cases." With regard to Imperial statutes which directly affect jurisdiction on proceedings in criminal matters in the colonies, the Commissioners considered I the propriety of introducing these provisions in the New Zealand code, and came to the conclusion that they would be out of place there, since they derive their authority directly from the Imperial Parliament.

j The Hon. Mr Buckley, in moving the I second reading of the liiil in the Legislative Council, described it as defining and simplifying to a great extent the criminal law, and taking away "those enormous distinctions which exist in the law at the present moment." The distinction, for instance, between felony and misdemeanor i;» abolished, and the use of the word "malice" throughout avoided. If this code is passed, he said, indictments will contain a short, plain statement of the offences > charged, and the mass of verbiage, hardly intelligible even to lawyers, will disappear. The Statutes Revision Commission decline to m»ke any recommendation as to the adoption of the provision introduced in the English Bill of ISSO, for permitting accused persons to give evidence on their trial. Several plausible reasons, as they allege, exist for i this, but difficulties and probable evil consequences can he easily suggested against it. | The Bill, however, as promoted by the j Government, contains a rescript of the clause i to this effect, wliich provides that everyone ' proceeded against by indictment shall be I a competent witness for himself, and wife or husband, as the case may be, a competent witness for him or her; but no such person j shall Ik) liable to be called as a witness by the prosecution, Mr Buckley says he never could understand why a man charged with an offence should have his mouth closed, aad why he should not be allowed to state on oath what defence he might A similar | provision has been the law in South Austra- | lia for a couple of years, and lias l>een found I very salutary. The Bill makes an alteration iin another ?*espect. There is a tiction rf the

law that when a married woman is witJnn sight of or under the supervision of the husband, she cannot commit an offence; but, as a fact, women often do commit offences without their husbands having any control over them. This Bill, says Mr Buckley, puts married women in the "same position as men or single women in that respect. We have given women the same privileges in respect of their property as men have; and there can be 110 reason why they should net have the same liability as men in respect to being charged with offences, without being allowed to shelter themselves under their husbands against the law."