JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 78, 22 May 1911, Page 4

JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE.

Commenting: on Mr. James Allen’s attacks on the Judiciary, the Christchurch “Press” says: —So far as the principle was concerned of appointing; Judges to act on commissions, Mr. Allen was perfectly within his rights in attacking it, and we agree with him. We also admit that if the Chief Justice said more than ho need have done or ought to have done when he asked to lie relieved of appointing two Judges on the Mine enquiry, and if he made statements which afterwards proved to he incorrect, the honourable member for Mrnce was perfectly justified in pointing out these facts, hut lie went further than this • Here we say Air. Allen was wrong—deplorably wrong. If a Judge is either consciously or unconsciously influenced liy the fact that he has been appointed on a commission and paid for his services so that he departs from the attitude of strict impartiality and judicial independence when dealing with a matter in which the Covernment is concerned, it is a question whether he is (it. for Ids position. Such a serious charge as that contained in Mr. Allen’s remarks should he made only from his place in the House, and if it is to hear the interpretation put upon

:t iL should be fallowed by motion for an address to the Crown to remove the Chief ,J unlive from I lie Hem;]-.. Cor our port wo have no henitalia in saying that wo Ic'lii'vo Iho charge ’<• without and inundation. . . Wo hope that Mr. Allen will see on reflection that lie has allowed ins zeal in the public interests to carry him further than is either desirable or right.