CO129-333 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [1-4] — Page 107

..::

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