COURT EVIDENCE

Taranaki Daily News, 5 June 1935, Page 10

COURT EVIDENCE

SPEED IN RECORDING. STENOGRAPHERS' ADVOCATED. - “Undoubtedly one of the first reforms that should be made in Court practice would be to provide for official stenographers to take every word of crossexamination, examination-in-chief and remarks by counsellors, as well as of the presiding judge, instead of the slow and often defective system of taking evidence by typists,” declared one of the most prominent barristers in New Zea- - land when asked if he .thought there were any ways in which the law could be expediated, in New Zealand. A special-commission is inquiring into that subject in England at present, and evidence of lawyers, including that of the Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Hewart), is being taken. “There is great and unnecessary delay in New Zealand in the taking down of evidence, and that delay should be avoided by the replacement of typists by shorthand writers of the ability of Hansard reporters,” the barrister pursued. “That is becoming necessary in the interests of justice as well as in the subsidiary interest of speed. The present system, whereby counsellors are required to pause for several seconds at a time while exact notes are taken by the typists, hampers counsellors for the Crown and for the accused persons in criminal, trials.

“If it should be necessary to wait for so long during the conduct of examination of witnesses. There is a loss of sequence and effect in asking questions and dbtaining proper answers. It should be open to counsellors to ask questions without delay, and to expect answers promptly. In England and in America, in all criminal trials, they have duly accredited court reporters who take down every word spoken. Here the judges have associates who act as typists. “So far as Supreme Court work is concerned it would expediate matters very considerably if we had stenographers to take down everything. What are a few pounds to be measured against the full and proper administration of justice? We are behind English practice. “The value of having every word taken down is more real than apparent, and it often means the difference between ‘ justice and injustice. Who can remember accurately and produce record of every word spoken having a bearing on any issue after the hearing when the present system is in force? AH of the evidence is not taken—only parts of it. Remarks made by judges l are often very important as to their effects upon juries and subsequent statements by witnesses. That has been shown in many cases on appeal in the law reports. “In England they have provision for real appeal in criminal matters, appeals on the facts as well as on the law as in New Zealand. Provision was made in the Imperial Court of Appeal Act, 1907, section 18, that shorthand notes shall be taken of the trial of any person on indictment who is entitled or may be entitled to appeal. No such provision in either civil or criminal trials exists in New Zealand. “One Of the Lords Justices in England said recently, ‘Supply us with expert typists or stenographers, and we will have no delays in our trials.’ That was spoken in reference to delays on circuit business. The famous case of libel action in the ‘Mr. X’ case several years ago showed the need for the taking of every word. In a jury case in Wellington recently there was great uncertainty in ■ the administration Of justice because every word was not taken when a jury returned in a civil case with written answers to the formal issues and an addendum of an informal character which was inclined to be contradictory. “I have discussed this matter with prominent barristers | and they have agreed that there is a real’ need for stenographers in Supreme Court trials. The matter will be discussed by the Law Society, and overtures made if, as we believe, that is the general view.”