XN000022-1992-05-27 — Page 18

16

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1992

FOR

THEY FELT THAT A MAGISTRATE'S RECORD MIGHT BE INSUFFICIENT APPEAL JUDGE TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE WHEN CONSIDERING THE USE OF THE PROPOSED PROVISO.

AN

"I HAVE GIVEN THE LEGAL PROFESSION'S CONCERN CONSIDERATION, BUT I AM SATISFIED THAT JUDGES WILL HAVE DIFFICULTY, MR MATHEWS SAID.

זי

CAREFUL NO SUCH

то TAKE, IN

"THE MAGISTRATES ORDINANCE OBLIGES MAGISTRATES WRITING, A FULL MINUTE OF THE EVIDENCE, AND OBJECTIONS TO AND RULINGS ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE.

"IF A DEFENDANT APPEALS, THE MAGISTRATE MUST SUPPLY A STATEMENT HIS FINDINGS ON THE FACTS AND OTHER GROUNDS OF HIS DECISION, HE

OF SAID.

MR MATHEWS SAID PURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, A JUDGE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO DISMISS AN APPEAL IF HE WAS SATISFIED THAT NO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE ACTUALLY OCCURRED BY THE VERDICT OF THE MAGISTRATE.

"IN PRACTICE, APPELLANTS ARE ALREADY ALLOWED CONSIDERABLE LATITUDE ΤΟ EXPLAIN ALLEGED MISCARRIAGES WHICH THEY CLAIM ARE NOT APPARENT FROM THE RECORD OR THE MAGISTRATE'S STATEMENT OF FINDINGS.

"I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE MANNER OF RECORDING A CASE, THE MAGISTRATES' COURT DOES NOT DIFFER FROM THE DISTRICT COURT.

LIKE MAGISTRATES, DISTRICT JUDGES TAKE THEIR

A PROVISO APPLIES IN APPEALS FROM DISTRICT ADMINISTERED SUCCESSFULLY BY THE COURT OF APPEAL.

NOTES.

OWN HANDWRITTEN COURT, AND IS

MR MATHEWS SAID JUDGES WOULD BE WELL ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY CASE WHERE A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE COULD OCCUR BY THE USE OF THE PROPOSED PROVISO.

DID NO

FOR

HE SAID HE HAD REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE AMENDMENT MORE THAN TO RESTORE TO JUDGES A POWER WHICH THEY HAD EXERCISED MANY YEARS PRIOR TO THE COURT OF APPEAL CASE IN DECEMBER 1988.

DEBATE ON THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED.

0

/17