Hazlett Case

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 68, 17 October 1930, Page 5

Hazlett Case

APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL. CONSENT REFUSED. NOT OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE. WELLINGTON, This Day. Oil two main grounds, ono that tho ease was not of sufficient public or general importance, tho other that it would be futile to grant leave to appeal because long before the Privy* Council could hear the case, tho applicant would bo at liberty, the Court yesterday refused its consent to a motion presented on behalf cf Ceil HW.lcitt, jtufeing flor pro. visiom/al leave to appeal to the Prihy Council. Tho chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, presided, with him Mr. Justice Herdman and Mr. Justice Kennedy. MJr. [Buxton represented appellant, and Mr. White the officer in charge of tho inebriates' homo on Roto Roa Island.

No question of money was involved, Mr. IBuxton said, but the question was ono in which the court had discretion to grant leave to appeal if the matter was of sufficiently great general and public importance to warrant it being sent to the Privy Council for decision. This was such a question, Mr. Buxton submitted, because tiho whole subject matter of tho appeal had been the personal liberty of tho applicant, and the whole argument both in the 'Supreme Court and in the Court of Appeal had been directed as to whether or not tho applicant had had a fair hearing, and whether he had had an opportunity of getting a fair hearing.

"Supposing you are right", said fhe Chief Justice, "and supposing tho Privy Council took a different view from that this court has taken ,you could obtain aio relief". Me, 'Bux,tcjn, : Wo mjigfht 'cMb&» a quashing of the conviction. The Chief Justice: There was none*. Mr >; Buxton: A quashing of the commitment. NO USE IN APPEALING. Tlie Chief 1 Justice said that the Habeas Corpus Act required a man to deliver the body or a person in his custody. In this case the period of detention would end in December and the case would not get before the Privy Council until June next. Mr. Buxton said that the juris, diction erf the Privy Council in cases like the present one went so far tha tit could make any order that his Majesty ini-Clouneil might tihink fit. There had been cases where the Privy Council had given decisions on lHabeas Corpus when fhe body in question was mo longer fn custody. In fact the Privy Council had heard applications when the prisoner had actually been discharg ed. If the commitment were set aside, he maintained, it would remove the stigma attaching to it. Tito Chief Justice: There is noth ting prevent "you from .sending your papers Home next week, and asking special leave. The appellant would not be prevented from making his appeal. Mr. Buxtoax said the appellant desired to test the validity of the original judgment by the Magistrate. There was no public or general interest in the application, Mr. White contended. All that \the applicant was basing it on was a dusire to relievo a possible stigma that might be attached to his name as a result of the commitment. That could, not be considered as of general or publio interest. There wasi anothJar aspect, also. The appellant was at present out on bail and the present application was obviously made for the purpose of extending the period of bail. As there was no possibility of the appeal beng heard before the expiration of the term imposed, surely, Mr. White said, it would be ilutilo to grant leave to appeal.

COURT REFUSES LEAVE. "lit ray opinion this is not a case iu which leave should be granted",, said the Chief Justice in giving decision, "ili on uiq other ground than this—that by tibia time the case got to the Privy Council the period of detention would have expired". The ca&e, to his mind ,H'as very different from those that had "been quoted. However, if the appellant thought tho court's views unsound it was still open to him to apply for ispecial leave. Mr. Justice Hendinau sfaid his majVi ground in refusing leave to appeal was that he did not consider the question to be of sufficient importauce to wan-ant it being sent to his Majesty-in-Council to decide. He tould isce no difference between this case and a number of others that had been concerned with magistrate's decisions and which had beeui decided by the Supreme Court.