420
What took place in Court undoubtedly was, that I respectfully protested, not against his judgment making part of his judgment but against his judgment.
of the Crown in Crabs, Condemnation of the Crown is a point of great Constitutional importance and one which had not been argued.
Since then he has delivered judgment in Reg. v. Sonza and Reg. v. Senza in which he says "There must be no Cast against the Crown."
As the Chief Justice himself remarks "Surely there must be some confusion here." Although the Chief Justice says in his letter that he declines to answer the simple question asked of him, he has done so.
Past this, the Crown are written frogment that they have to pay Costs. He says (p. 7) 'although the decision was without hearing Counsel, Counsel was not heard because Counsel would not embrace the opportunity which was offered for arguing the question.' and at page 8 "Whatever judgment I gave against ... was without hearing. The reason was that Counsel did not avail themselves of the leave offered".
Mr. Pollard, Q.C., and Mr. Hazeland occur with me in most positively asserting that the above statements on the part of the Chief Justice are totally unwarranted by the facts.
It was never proposed for an instant that so grave a point should be argued then and there, but on the contrary the Chief Justice distinctly stated, as appears by both the Newspaper Reports which accompany his letter, that he would hear the Counsel argue...
420
What took place in Count undoubtedly was, that I respectfully protested, not
1. but against
against his judgment. making part of his judgment
wt his
ས་
of the Crown in Crabs,
Condemnation of the
a point of grane Constitutional importance-
and ene
which had not beew
Since then he has delivered.
Indgment in
he say
"
argued..
Reg. N. Sonza
V. Senza in which
There must be no Cast
the Crown."
Ajaint
As the Chief prestice himself remarks Surely there must be some Anfusion here. Although the Chief pristine say in his
letter that he declines to answer the
Pimple question asked of hem, he has
for he declares that it is still
done so.
past this
Crown are
witter frogment that the to pay Corts-
The says (p. 7)
' although the decision was without
hearing
Amusel, Commsel was not heard because
1
Conusel would not cobrase the opportunity which doffered for arguing the question. and at page 8 "Whatever judgment I gave ajamet ཊ་་་་ ཀ
ac to dato it trax not aramet
Protest
au
ifet
L.
was without hearing.
Connect the reason was that Conneeb did)
not avail themselves
I
of the leave Loffered".
Mr. Pollard, Q.C., and Mr Harzeland
Ocour
with
ALE
in mort positively aporting
of
the Chief prestia
that the above statements
on to tally unwarranted by the facto
It was menev
proposed for an instant-
that so grave a point should be argued) then and there, but
on the
the Co
Contrary
the Chief
Justice distinothy stated, as appears by both the Newspaper Reports which isompany -his letter) that he would hear the front arquer
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.