INMATE OF ROTO ROA.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20646, 19 August 1930, Page 14

INMATE OF ROTO ROA.

MOVE FOR RELEASE MADE. IRRfcGULARITIES ALLEGED. 'A MAGISTRATE CRITICISED. / HAZLETT CASE CONCLUDED. The habeas corpus proceedings commenced in the Supreme Court at the end of last month with a view to securing the release,of Cecil Hazlctt, farmer,.of North Taieri,'from detention at the Inebriates' Homo on Roto Roa Island wcio concluded before Mr. Justice Smith yesterday. On behalf of Hazlctt Mr. Sullivan sought a writ of habeas corpus, against Staff-Captain T. Buttimore, manager of tho Salvation Army Homo at Roto Roa. Mr. Hubblo and Mr. McCarthy opposed it on behalf of Staff-Captain Buttimore and of/ Edgar Hazlett, merchant, of Duncdin, on whoso complaint tho order of committal against his brother Cecil was made. " As far as principle is concerned there has not been before tho Supreme Court for soma time a more important matter," said Mr. Sullivan. "It is tho question whether or not a man brought before a Court of justice in New Zealand has had a. fair trial, and whether the party bring ing him before the Court has tho right to select his own Judge." The two main points' ho was going to make were that this man had no hearing and that the ' complainant iu the case selected his own Judge. Court Held in Bedroom. I There was a further point that he wished to lscep in reserve and use it' necessary—that before a man could be committed to a State reformatory home ho had to have four previous convictions. This man had never been convicted. Thjfe points of the case were set forth in the filed affidavits which counsel referred to. They showed that Cecil Hazlett on December 17 last in his home in North Taieri was committed Roa Island. Ho was in a room in his home, sick ,iri , bed. Without notice there appeared iri his room a solicitor, Mr. Charles Payne, who asked him if he would go to the island. Later there came in two policemen, Drs. Evans and Spedding, E. C. Hazlett and L. C. Hazlett, a clerk of Court and Mr. J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. Hazlett received sentence of 12 months' detention. The evidence of three witnesses was that a warrant was issued, but the warrant had been lost. A constable stated that he believed he lost it in Auckland in,'; a' struggle with the accused. Counsel's'representative in Duncdin had been refused authority, to search the records, oh tho ground that the proceedings were Criminal, i■; " Gilbertian Situation." •The warrant was issued to a constable to bring the man before a Justice, but in this case the Justice was brought bofpre the man. There was a Gilbertian situation when the parties arrived at the house. It was tragic. The parties had arranged among themselves, the magistrate included; that Mr. Payne was to go; in first,' and that if he could not get thai man to consent to go to Roto Boa the police were to follow immediately. One of the greatest of legal safeguards wasAthat the accused did not know by whom he was to be tried. Here it appeared that the complainant chose the magistrate, who was a. party to all the little intrigues that went on. Counsel submitted that Hazlett did not have a fair hearing as laid down by the authorities. The trial was contrary to the laws of the land and to natural justice. The man was said by the doctors to he suffering from over-indulgence in alcoholic liquor. Staff-Captain T. Buttimore stated that Hazlett was in the last stages of delirium tremens when he arrived at the island. Evidence given against a man in ithat condition could not bo considered a fair trial. \ After hearing the evidence the magistrate ■ made an order without asking Hazlett if he wished to call evidence. Carrying the procedure to its logical conclusion, the magistrate could be holding courts in every hole and corner s-ibout Dunedin, provided the parties concerned were sufficiently influential. " No Hearing Whatever." The Act had been in force for 21 years ■ and this was the first time a magistrate's action had been questioned. Manifestly the man had no hearing whatever. The conviction or order did not state that there was a hearing. Mr. Hubble submitted that on one or two material points His Honor would have to decide on a conflict of evidence. There was a conflict whether the applicant took part in the hearing and whether there was a proper hearing, and tho question of credibility would come in. His Honor said the argument had been based largely on the affidavits of the Grown witnesses. Mr. Hubble said that was so except with reference to the actual hearing. He said the affidavit of E. C. Hazlett showed that for some years the applicant had been taking alcoholic liquor to excess. When Edgar Hazlett threatened to have his brother Cecil put in an institution Cecil replied that he would cut his throat ii that were done. That showed the circumstances in which the brothers had to decide what was to be done. E. C. Hazlett further said that. Cecil took an active interest in the hearing and asked several questions of the witnesses. The solicitor. Mr. C. J. Payne, said he discussed the matter with Cecil Hazlett; and Dr. Spedding, who had attended him for ' years, said he was in possession of his faculties and understood the proceedings. Dr. Evans also said that Cecil ITazleM was well aware of the proceedings, and the clerk of Court said that Cecil Hazlett fully availed himself of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The magistrate said he fully explained the proceedings to the defendant. On a question of credibility counsel submitted that tho testimony of these witnesses was to be preferred to that of tho applicant. The question of the issue of / the warrant was now beyond doubt. Tho affidavit of Cecil Hazlctt was in conflict with that of the other witnesses on almost cverv point. Cecil Hazlett claimed to have lived a sober life and this was contradicted. Applicant's Allegations. One statement of tho applicant's that threw grave doubt on his bona fides was that lie was a director of Mackerras and Hazlett and that the whole proceedings were instigated by his brothers because lie had been opposing them on the board of directors. That was a very grave .statement to make and counsel submitted that it was not to be believed. The applicant himself stated: "I have taken no active part in the management of the fiir/i for the last few years." He sought to mislead the Court by declaring that he was not a drunkard. The applicant had twice had leave from .Roto Roa and voluntarily returned to it, thus showing that he realised the treatment was for his good. It was only when his leave was stopped that he, instituted these proceedings to secure release. Touching on points of law, counsel submitted that tho proceedings wero not criminal as no imprisonment was involved Magistrates wero armed with wide powers to deal with matters of urgency. Counsel claimed that all the formalities of the relevant section of the law had been complied with and the applicant understood all that took place and took active part in the hearing. 'Die Court was proper!v set up and the applicant was properly before it. J . v^' s Honor reserved his decision and directed that tho applicant should be al-♦owed-toajpmain a,t liberty on bail.