In a series of articles I would like to explain a bit more about exactly what Judicial Justices actually do. There are three different types of court that Judicial Justices preside over in Christchurch;
1) List Court:
This is every second Thursday, starting at 10:00 a.m. and can include traffic offences (exceeding the speed limit, unlicensed drivers, careless driving) disorderly behaviour, local body infringement notices ( re parking etc) bio security infringement notices.
2) Fixtures Court:
This is where the defended hearings are heard. If a defendant pleads not guilty to something in the List Court, the case is adjourned to the Fixtures court so a dedicated Judge-alone trial can be heard.
3) Remand Court:
This is held at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday mornings and on Public Holidays. (dealing with people who have been arrested on Friday/Saturday morning).
There are strict rules around what types of offences Judicial Justices have jurisdiction. Generally, we have jurisdiction over all infringement offences plus any offence that the statute that creates the offence gives us jurisdiction. Justices must act in pairs where the statute in question says so, but may act alone if the relevant provision in an Act says so.
I will first explain the List Court.
There can be a large range of alleged offences that can appear in a Judicial Justices List Court. This is usually their first appearance and once the charge is put to them, they would plead guilty or not guilty. Defendants can also do this by letter prior to the court hearing.
If they plead guilty, then the case can be heard there and then and a penalty can be imposed.
If they plead not guilty, then the case is adjourned to the next available fixtures court so they have the opportunity of defending themselves.
If they are not present (which happens quite a lot), then the case is often adjourned so the prosecutor can call oral evidence or produce formal statements or affidavit to prove the charge in the absence of the defendant.
One of the most common offences in the List Court is people who are unlicensed and they have failed to comply with a prohibition to drive. The charge generally arises when an unlicensed driver has been intercepted and issued an order forbidding them to drive until properly licensed, only for them to be intercepted on a subsequent occasion driving contrary to the order. There sometimes is a long period between the subsequent interception – the longest I have seen was 10 years. When asked why the defendant hasn’t got a licence, they replied “I haven’t had time!” The vehicle being driven may be impounded by the Police for 28 days.
It is our aim to
encourage these people to get a learner license. It is far better for all the
other road users that these people have passed a competency test and got a
license, rather than continue to drive while unlicensed. We are able to adjourn
the case for up to 6 weeks to enable the defendant to go and get their licence.
The aim is that they come back to court with a license. If they do, we can
either discharge without conviction or convict and discharge them.
There are those that
don’t want to, or have no intention to get a license. This becomes an expensive
act for them, as the starting penalty is $400 and this increases by $50 for
each subsequent penalty.
It never fails to
amaze me how many people are driving around out there without any license,
especially when you think no license = no insurance. We only see the ones that
get caught!
Speeding is another
expensive activity. It is amazing how fast some drivers travel, especially in a
built up area. Anything 46-50km/hr over the limit has a penalty of $630 plus 3
months disqualification and 50km/hr over the limit has a maximum $1000 fine
plus up to 6 months disqualification.
It frightens me to
think that people travel 50km/hr over the limit, especially in town but it does
happen, more frequently than you would think.
Careless use is
another expensive activity. We have to ask ourselves; “how careless was the
defendant?” On the day of writing this, we had a defendant who turned in front
of a young lady on a bike. Her bike was written off, as was her helmet and her
phone. While these are all replaceable, what has impacted on her more was her
lack of confidence. She will now not bike anywhere and is also frightened when
she drives. We were able to award reparation payment to replace the broken
things, and we were able to award her a payment for emotional harm. While she
suffered some minor injuries, she was lucky to not have been permanently
injured. This could have been any one of us, our children or grandchildren.