From the Courts

By Bernard Randall (and the N.Z. Journalist)

Teariki Karotaua, 34 of Weinuiomata, was charged with the murder of Maara Taramai and the attempted murder of her mother Tuerei Taramai. The taking of depositions was heard before Mr Patterson SM at the Lower Hutt Magistrates Court.

On the first day of the hearing, according to a number of those present in the Magistrate's Court, Mrs Teurei Taramai referred to the fatal stabbing of her daughter as an "accident".

When the deposition was read back for checking defence counsel D.C. Stevenson asked for the alleged reference to be inserted.

Crown Prosecutor K.G. Stone and the Magistrate, Mr J.K. Patterson, SM, said they had not heard the remark and Mr Patterson declined to have it inserted in the record.

Later in the hearing Stevenson asked Dominion reporter Peter Gillbanks if he had heard the remark. Gillbanks said he had not only heard it, he had noted it down because it had seemed odd and could have made a good intro.

Accordingly, on the third day Gillbanks was called by the defence on sub-poena.

Mr Patterson appeared unhappy at the repetition of the defence claim that evidence given by a key witness had been omitted from the Court record.

While Gillbank's name and occupation were being taken down, he was questioned by Prosecutor Stone, and started to reply.

In raised tones, Mr Patterson ordered Gill-banks not to speak while the stenographer was typing. Then he ordered Gillbanks to continue. Defence counsel Stevenson asked Gillbanks if he could remember what was said on the first day's hearing.

Gillbanks said he could not; however there was something in his notes. Stevenson asked Gill-banks if he would like to refer to them. He replied that he would. He was than asked if he would get them.

Gillbanks stepped from the witness box to pick up his notes. Mr Patterson raised his voice again and told Gillbanks he was not to leave the witness box without his permission. If he wanted to leave the witness box and not return that was up to him. He was on oath and since he had left the witness box he would have to be resworn.

Mr Patterson then gave Gillbanks leave to get down from the witness box and pick up his notes.

When Gillbanks had done this, Mr Patterson ordered the proceedings to continue. He did not order Gillbanks to be resworn as he had said he would have to do.

The defence counsel then asked Gillbanks to read from his notes.

There were two folios in front of Gillbanks and: he asked Stevenson which page he was to read from.

Once again the Magistrate raised his voice end told Gillbanks he was not in the witness box to ask questions.

After Gillbanks had been called and had produced his notes, Mr Patterson repeated that he had not heard the alleged omission and he ruled that Mrs Taramai's evidence had been fairly and properly recorded by the court typist.

"Not with a view to discarding Mr Gillbank's evidence, but to make sure the Court record speaks the precise facts," said the Magistrate.

Nobody asked the original witness, Mrs Taramai, what she had said.

This vital evidence which was omitted from the depositions may have allowed the accused to be charged with a less serious offence. Why does Mr Patteron SM prefer to believe the court typist before many other people in the court?

Was Mr Petterson SM afraid to acknowledge the court had made a mistake? On July 8, 1974 the accused will be on trial before the Supreme Court.

How can me defendant receive a fair trial when the depositions do not record the true facts?

••••••••••

A 17-year-old welder appeared for sentence before Mr Patterson SM in the Lower Hutt Magistrate's Court, He had previously pleaded guilty to stealing a $90 aluminium canopy, the property of his employer the Hutt County Council.

Patterson: Have you anything to say?

Defendant (unrepresented by counsel): No.

Patterson: Nothing at all?

Defendant: No.

Patterson: Why is that? Do you realise what the statute says concerning this offence?

Defendant: No.

Patterson: Then it might not be best to say 'No' unless you know, (To registrar) Tell him what the punishment is for this offence.

Registrar: Seven years maximum sir.

Patterson: I repeat the question — what representations do you want to make?

Defendant: I don't think I deserve seven years.

Patterson: Why? Parliament thinks you do.

Defendant: I don't think my offence is that bad. It was simply straight-out theft.

Patterson: Straight-out theft! Well, straight-out theft needs a straight-out punishment. What am I to do then?

Defendant: I don't want seven years in prison.

Patterson: So Parliament's wrong and you're right eh?

Defendant: No, not really.

Patterson: Then what should be done with you?

Defendant: A shorter term than seven years.

Patterson: But you're a thief. Parliament says seven years for thieving, but It lets me make my mind up.

Defendant: I'll leave it up to you.

Patterson: I could go further than that though. Have you read the probation officer's report?

Defendant: Yes.

Patterson: Do you think it's good?

Defendant; Yes.

Patterson: Well I think its all wrong. I read it as 'a person who had intelligence but want's to cause as much trouble to society as possible'. Is this the way you read it?

Defendant: In a roundabout way.

Patterson: If I think that's the way you want to conduct yourself, I'll make sure you get chucked out of society for a long time. You've had your chance, I'm not going to waste any more time with you.

Mr Patterson sentenced the 17-year-old defendant to borstal training.

It is difficult to discover what really happens in the court-room from reading an 'Evening Post' court report, and the 'Dominion' (which publishes less than a dozen local reports a week) is hardly useful as a source of clarification. The only mention of this case appeared in the 'Evening Post' of June 27 (see clipping), and although it purports to be of a case that took place on June 26 (notice use of the word "yesterday"), it Is of the earlier appearance of the same defendant over a week previous.

If the question of what is actually going on in our courts confuses you, the reader, it is some indication of how a 17-year-old welder feels when he stands in the dock and undergoes a 10-minute question-and-answer session.