..::
COPY.
B
Opinion of Mr. R. B. L. Eowley.
Hon. Attorney-General,
105
2014
RECO
&
Past 12 MAR 26
In my opinion the present provisions for
appeals from a Magistrate are sufficient, but hardship results
from the way in which those provisions are carried out.
Mr. Stephens raises two objections to the
2.
present system,
(i) expense
8.
(ii) dismissal on technical grounds.
With regard to (i) the expense arises
from two sources (a) the heavy security required by the Magis-
-trate for the due prosecution of the appeal and payment of the
costs of the respondent (usually the Crown); (b) the heavy fees
charged by Solicitors and Counsel for the appellants.
4.
The Magistrate has an absolute discretion
as to the amount of the Security (Sec. 106 8.3. 1 of the Magis-
-trates Ordinance, 1890) and should exercise his discretion
with due regard to the means of the appellant - bearing in mind
that the principal object of requiring Security is to prevent
frivolous appeals.
5.
As to fees of Counsel and Solicitors
(whether for the appellant or respondent) 1 suggest that a scale
of costs should be drawn up fixing minimum and maximum fees
for both Counsel and Solicitors, and giving the taxing officer
discretion to allow either scale of fees having due regard to
the means of the parties and the importance of the case. At
present there is no scale of fees for Criminal Appeals, and
bills are taxed according to the scale in force for actions in
the
1