The Marlborough Express PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1909. TRIAL BY COMMISSION.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIII, Issue 115, 13 May 1909, Page 4

The Marlborough Express PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1909. TRIAL BY COMMISSION.

■. •■ ■ _♦ -■ ■ i \ ■"'; ; A question of the highest importance was recently decided by the Supreme Court, but very little public notice appears to have been taken of it, certainly not such as its merits demand. It will be remembered from reports published at the time that an application was made to the Ohinemuri Licensing Committee for the' transfer of a certain license, and it,

was alleged that money was paid to several members of the Committee to secure the granting of the application. The government, through the Attorney-General, thereupon appointed Mr Justice Sim as a Commission of Inquiry into this allegation. The question which the Court of Appeal was asked to decide was whether the Governor-in-Council had power to appoint such a Commission, seeing that section 5 of the Crimes Act provides that every person charged with an offence, or who is a party thereto, must be proceeded against under some statute. Mr Justice Williams, in giving the judgment of the Court, pointed out that the only statutory provision applying to such case was section 126 of the Crimes Act, which enacted that everyone committed the crime of judicial corruption, who, being the holder of any judicial office, corruptly accepted any bribe, etc. There could be no doubt, said his Honor, that a licensing committee was a judicial tribunal, exercising judicial functions, and its members were members of a Court. They were also, by virtue of sections 42 and 47 of the Licensing Act, holders of an office, and they were, therefore, holders of judicial office within the meaning of section 126 of the Crimes Act. Tho position was therefore, that the Conimission had. been set up to inquire whether the plaintiffs were guilty of a crime. Such Commission was noi authorised by the Commissions Inquiry Act, 1901. It might well be that there were cases not within the Act, but in which a Commission might inquire by writ issued under the Governor's letters patent. There must, however, added his Honor, be some limit to the power of the Crown or the Governor, acting for the Crown, to set up a commission of inquiry. The second section of Statute 16, which abolished the star chamber, enacts that no commission can be set up to inquire into the guilt or innocence of individuals. The Act provided that no man should be put to answer a crime except in the manner prescribed by law. The authorities were uniform that in matters of crime a commission of inquiry was unlawful. That was the real object of this Commission of Inquiry. If allowed to proceed it would virtually be a trial of an offence, without that protection which the criminal law gives accused persons. In no case could it be found where such an inquiry had been directed under Royal Commission. Whether or no members of this Licensing Committee did, or did not, receive bribes, was quite immaterial. Every person, whether innocent or guilty, charged with an offence, was entitled to be tried according to law. The Commission was therefore, under the judgment of the Court, prohibited from continuing the inquiry. The law as laid do^yn appears to be eminently sound, providing as it does for the fair open trial to which all accused persons are entitled. This point has now been placed beyond doubt in New Zealand, and it is scarcely likely, after the Court's judgment, that any further star chamber inquiries will be ordered into the guilt or innocence of any persons against whom crime may bo alleged. But there is in this matter a point from which attention should not be diverted. It is that 'members of the Licensing Committee have been charged with conduct which, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, brings them within the meaning of the Crimes Act. In short, criminal [allegations have been made against them, and this very fact has protected them frota the inquisition of a .special "Commissioner. But the Court' hints pretty clearly that their conduct should certainly be inquired into, that these members should "be tried ac-i cording to law." Will the Crown Law Department take the hint, and follow the usual course for proving the truth or falsity of the accusations made? Government interference with the administration'of justice would be deplorable if it were possible to be permitted, and the judgment under notice clearly indicates the limitations of the Crown in this respect. Such a pronouncement' has not come before it was wanted. Some time ago when Connolly confessed to the murder of Burke, a crime for which two innocent men had already suffered imprisonment, the question was raised whether the Government would place the real murderer on his trial for perjury and murder. .The Government was' said to be considering the question, and finally, after long delay, the man has now been' arraigned to answer to the charge. But what would have happened had the Executive, which appeared, most unjustifiably, to have taken this question into its keeping, decided not to place the man on his trial? It would have meant that a self-confessed murderer would 'have escaped, and that justice would have been scandalised. -We want no Government interference in this country, either by Commission or otherwise, with the course of justice.