A VITAL RIGHT

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20118, 13 February 1937, Page 6

A VITAL RIGHT

In a democracy there is one thing that is of more importance than any other, and it is the administration of justice. Authorities on the subject of democratic government may difler on many points, but they agree that there must be, in order to ensure national stability, “equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state of persuasion, religious or political." And by that is meant something more than the freedom of the courts of the land from even the suspicion of bias or of political influence. There must be ready access for all men to those courts, otherwise some may be deprived of what is their alienable right. Probably these points are not in dispute in the Dominion, but there must be, and we believe there is now, a feeling that the Government has established precedents that may prove harmful by refusing aggrieved parties access to the courts of the land. Recently attention was drawn to the provision in the Primary Products Marketing Act that prevented any appeal against the guaranteed prices on any ground whatsoever. The same trend was found in the amendments of the transport Imvs. The Minister was made the final court of appeal, and persons interested were not allowed access to the courts. Then, in the Prevention of Proflteering Act, no party had a right to appeal against the decision of a magistrate. The executive of the Associated Chambers of Commerce recently urged the Minister to reconsider this matter, but Mr Sullivan replied that he was not prepared to grant the request. He supported his decision by a statement and, if it contained all that can be said for thus limiting the rights of individuals and firms, then the case is very weak indeed. The Minister stressed the fact that before action was taken the Department must be satisfied that an ofience had been committed. He mentioned, as a. further safeguard, that the Minister himself had then to be satisfied, and “the third safeguard” was the magistrate. , The first two alleged “safeguards” are not judicial. Their duty is to decide Whether, from their point of view, there is a case to place before a court. The prosecutors cannot be the judges. If it is intended that. in all cases brought before a magistrate, there shall be the implication that in the considered opinion of a Department of State and a Minister of the Crown an ofi'cnce has been committed, then the position will be similar to that of an officer of high rank in the Expeditionary Force who told his otlicers that too many of the men he sent up for court martial were being discharged. The decision may be one of law and not solely of fact, and Mr Sullivan and his departmental officers are not competent to be judges of legal issues. If the prosecution in these cases is to be conducted by the Crown then an appeal by a defendant would not in\‘olve any private party other than those concerned in the case. And above and beyond all these aspects is the vital principle that anyone feeling that justice has not been done! should be permitted to carry the case to a higher tribunal. That is the usual thing, with proper limitations, and there is no reason why it should be denied in cases under this particular Act. And, in the long run. it might be the best course for the Government to adopt. It would be a strong indictment of any Government if it. could be shown that citizens had been refused access to courts of law. That would be a. most serious development in a country claiming to be a democracy.