Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University students' Newspaper. Volume Number 39, Issue 7. April 12 [1976]

Courts Reporter Taken to Task

page 20

Courts Reporter Taken to Task

Dear Sir,

Your 'From the Courts' feature as rendered by one Helen Croft (Salient April 5) invites comment.

Why do you accept court reporting from someone who does not know the difference between a judge and a magistrate?

Perhaps less elementary is the rather misguided attempt on Ms Croft's part to blame Mr Richardson S.M. for the failure of counsel in a drug case to convince the court that special circumstances applied in the case quoted. The magistrate can hardly be blamed for the legislation he has a duty to enforce. Nor can he be blamed for Supreme Court decisions on the Narcotics Act which make it clear that the special circumstances must relate to the offence and not the offender for them to be relevant to the sentence ultimately handed out. Clearly the 'heart of the public' was won because of the circumstances of the offender and the magistrate quite properly ignored this.

Talking of the offender, it appears he shook in the dock (most people do in those circumstances) and he was 'shy and inexperienced'. So shy and inexperienced was he that he was able to acquire a pound of an illicit drug from which he would have gained $950 on resale.

He was of full age no doubt he was well aware of the risks he ran. For Ms Croft's information there have been countless youths in similar circumstances to our shy boy who have been sentenced by judges of the Supreme Court to as much as two years imprisonment for approximately the same offence. Mr Richardson was not entirely unmoved by counsel's submissions after all.

Personally I believe the Narcotics Act I to be fundamentally flawed particularly I in its approach to marijuana. The need I to change the Act however should not I be an excuse for grossly misinformed criticism of a Magistrate over a decision which was as humane as the Narcotics Act allows.

Before Ms Croft bursts into print again she should bone up a little on the legal issues she gets bogged down in. So far you have sent a girl to do a woman's job.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Smith.