1008
D.
Opinion of Mr. 1. Sercombe Smith.
RECO
Your Excellency,
0.0
0614
Heat 12 MAR 06
103
As regards 'A' of the Attorney-General's
minute, it is not proposed to abrogate the right of appeal to the Supreme Court if a party wishes to so appeal, but to establish a cheaper Court of Appeal side by side of the present Court of Appeal. A party having exercised his option to go be- -fore the inferior Court of Appeal would be barred from going to' the Superior Court of Appeal.
Slips in procedure would still occur but
might be amended by leave of the inferior Court, before which the proceedings would be swifter and less expensive than in the Superior Court.
As regards 'E', it seems to have been over-: -looked that it is the duty of the Magistrate to require a re-
-cognizance conditioned, not only to prosecute the appeal with- -out delay, but also (which is the important point) to pay such costs as may be awarded. It is because the costs are heavy that
the amount nared in the recognizance is heavy. So that it is
not a question of the Magistrates having exercised discretion
carelessly but of there being no option in the Magistrate to do
anything but fix the amount of the recognizance at a high figure. It is these costs which scare parties from appealing,
not the action of the Magistrates in requiring a heavy amount of
security.
3.
As regards 'Q' l should be very glad to see
a low scale of costs for Criminal Appeals introduced; but the
result will not be much of an amelioration: because unless
barristers, who alone have the ear of the full Court, are highly
feed they wont go into Court, as it pays them better to stay
out. So that the appellant will, if barristers' fees are cut
down
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.