THE OHINEMURI COMMISSION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVII, Issue 996, 8 April 1909, Page 21

THE OHINEMURI COMMISSION.

A NOVEL POINT RAISED. CAN THE KING SET UP A NEW COURT.

The Appeal Court at Wellington is engaged hearing argument in the case of Cock and others v. The Attorney General and Mr. Justice Sim, or writ of prohibition, to restrain Mr. Justice Sim from proceeding with the Commission. The plaintiffs were elected members of the Ohinemuri Licensing Committee in June, 1900. On February 27, 1909, His Excellency the Governor, acting by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, appointed Mr. Justice Sim as a Commissioner to inquire into certain charges of bribery made against the plaintiffs while members of the Ohinemuri Licensing Committee- The recital in the Commission was as follows: —“Whereas it has been alleged in connection with an application made to the Licensing Committee of Ohinemuri, in or about the month of June, 1900, by one Maurice Goggan Power, for the grant of a license in respect to premises situate at Waihi, in lieu of his then existing license in respect of premises situate at Paeroa, money was paid to several members of the committee as bribes to support the application,” >etc. Plaintiff’s moved the case to the Supreme Court for declaration that the Commission wa.s null and void on the ground that the Governor-in-Council had no power to issue a Commission to inquire into an alleged criminal offence, and that the Commission was consequently illegal. The plaintiff also claim a writ of certiorari to quash the Commission and a writ of injunction or writ of prohibition, to restrain Mr. Justice Sim from proceeding with the Commission, upon the same grounds. Messrs. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., F. E. Baume, K.C., and Luckie, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Messrs. M. Chapman, K.C., and D. M- Findlay for the defendants.

It was agreed to submit the following questions to the Court for decision:—l. Was the Governor-in-Council authorised, under “The Commission of Inquiry Act,” to appoint Mr. Justice Sim to inquire and report (a) upon charges of bribery recited in the Commission, or (b) as to the necessity or expediency of any legislation in the piremises as mentioned in the Commission? 2. Assuming that the Commission had been a Royal Commission, under letters patent, was the Governor authorised to appoint Mr. Justice Sim to make the inquiries set out above? 3. Has Mr. Justice S’m authority, either under the Commission, or under the Royal Commission, to exercise the powers which the Commission purports to vest in him.

Mr. Skerrett submitted the following points:—That the King cannot, by his prerogative, set up a new Court nor take away from nor add to the existing jurisdiction of any Court, except 'by the authority of Act of Parliament; that the Governor is not viceroy, and does not possess any general sovereign power, his authority being derived from, and limited to, the powers expressly or implicitly entrusted to him by his Commiss : on; that the Commission of the King, like all the King’s writs, must be such

as to have the warrant of law, and continual allowance in courts of justice, all others being unlawful and void; that the King cannot set up a Commission to inquire into and determine, nor to inquire only into a charge of crime cognisable by existing jurisdiction; that the King may set a Commission to inquire into and gather information on general matters, but cannot set up a Commission to inquire into purely personal rights; that the prerogative of the Crown has not been delegated to the Governor in this respect. Defendants case has still to be. stated-