COURT FINES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23894, 23 August 1939, Page 7

COURT FINES

PENALTIES FOR DEFAULT ARBITRARY IMPRISONMENT PREVENTED AMENDING LEGISLATION (Fbom Ouk Parliamentary Reporter » , WELLINGTON, Aug. 22. The arbitrary imprisonment of persons in default of payment of finest except in special circumstances, is prevented by the Summary Penalties Bill, which was introduced by Governor-General's Message in the House of Representatives to-day. The Bill, which also legalises a common practice of stipendiary magistrates of extending the time for payment of fines, was read a second time pro forma and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. It is to come into force on January 1, 1940. The Bill is described as "an Act to amend the Justices of the Peace Act, 1927, in relation to the penalties imposed on summary conviction or by orders of justices." Cases Heard by Justices In imposing a fine justices are required to consider among other things the means of an offender. Restrictions are imposed on the imprisonment of persons under 21 years of age, as no such person is to be imprisoned for.the" non-payment of a fine unless justices or magistrates are satisfied that no other method of dealing with the offender is' appropriate. In imposing a fine justices may allow time for payment or permit payment by instalments. When provision is made for payment by instalments, justices may order that the offender be placed under the supervision of a probation officer or any other person they may appoint until the sum is paid. This course is made mandatory in the case of offenders under 21 years of age, unless justices are satisfied that it is undesirable or impracticable to place the person concerned under aupervisiion. Exception to Rule An exception to the general rule for avoiding imprisonment is made in cases of drunkenness. If a fine is not paid within a stipulated time, any justice may issue a distress warrant for purposes of levying the amount of the fine or so much of it as is not paid. Justices may issue the distress warrant immediately or may order .imprisonment, if satisfied that the defendant is of sufficient means to pay the fine forthwith, has no fixed place of abode, or that the gravity of the offence, the character of the offender or other special circumstances justify the demand for immediate payment. Imprisonment may be ordered by a magistrate where an offender is found after reasonable inquiry to have insufficient means to satisfy a distress warrant., A magistrate is also empowered to reduce the amount under a distress warrant or to direct that imprisonment be postponed or waived. ■/'•■ The Bill setsoiit a icale .of imprisonment in default of payment of fines, ranging from two days' imprisonment for an amount of £1 to three months' imprisonment for a sum of £2O. By partial payment of fines a prisoner may obtain remission of part of his sentence. Explanation by Minister " The Bill provides that where the court intends a fine as punishment there will not be imprisonment as an automatic result of non-payment of the fine," said the Attorney-gen-eral (Mr H. G. R. Mason) when the Bill was introduced. "A person who is fined for an offence will have to come before the court again before he may be sent to prison for default, except -in cases of drunkenness." The purpose of the Bill was entirely humanitarian. Mr Mason said, and followed precedent established in England. It legalised what was very frequently done by magistrates. Mr J. G. Coates (Opposition, Kaipara) suggested that an offender might be content just to owe a fine and let it go at that. The Bill might, in fact, encourage a "Kathleen Mavoureen " system. "I think that the Bill will be found to provide all the necessary machinery," the Minister said. "If it is ineffective in any way, I shall be pleased to have the help of members of the House in remedying its faults. To-day there is a general sentiment against sending people to prison if it can be avoided and I am sure the Bill will operate in a humanitarian direction."