Speedy justice at work

Magistrate ticked off for making five serious errors of law in a single flourish ... Madge Coombs zapped by Dickie Button ... Slow down and follow the dance steps 

Madge Coombs' dad - Nugget

IT was a good try by NSW madge Jim Coombs to try and break the record for the most errors of law in the one decision. 

Justice Dickie Button spelled out the gruesome facts here.  

Coombs comes from a distinguished lineage, being the son of Nugget, brother to former bar prez John QC and to eccentric barrister sister Janet. 

John Coombs was also the author of the leading text, How Can You Appear for Someone You Know is Guilty?   

That didn't stop Jim making "grave errors" in the Tisimasi Panapa Gatu case. 

In May last year Tisi was charged with driving sans licence. 

He appeared in court on July 8, 2013, saying he did not believe his ticket had been cancelled and that he had a letter, somewhere, to that effect from the people at Roads and Maritime Services. 

The matter was stood over for two weeks so Tisi could hunt for the letter. 

Here's a slice of the transcript. 

His Honour: So do you reckon you can find a copy of it somewhere?

Accused: I have done the last few weeks --- 

His Honour: Well two weeks? Look Mr Gatu we can't just sit here with you saying, 'I don't know'. Yes or no, are you going to get some proof that you thought you weren't cancelled? 

Accused: If I could get that from the RTA, yeah. 

His Honour: Yeah, well I can't order it, you can go and ask for it. Two weeks? 

Accused: Yeah. Your Honour, what would the penalty be for --- 

His Honour: The penalty is 12 months off the road, see you in two weeks.

Accused: Okay, thank you.

Adjourned.

Later that day, at around 3.45pm, a colleague of the police persecutor received a phone message from the Local Court registry, saying that HH had adjourned for the day, but that the defendant had returned to the court armed with his driving record from Roads and Maritime Services. 

Coombs had determined the matter in chambers and dismissed the charge - without the knowledge of the police prosecutor. 

On JusticeLink the following orders were recorded: 

"A plea of not guilty is entered. The matter before the court is dismissed. The court found the charge was not appropriate." 

The ODPP got on its hind legs and appealed. 

Dickie identified at least five breaches of fundamental principles of law. 

1. Legal disputes joined between parties must be adjudicated in a courtroom, not in chambers. Subject to limited circumstances it must be a courtroom open to the public. 

2. An opponent in litigation must be given the right to be heard. Dismissing the charge without hearing a word from the prosecution was an error of law. 

3. The magistrate, constituting the tribunal of fact and law, failed to provide any reasons explaining why the charge had been dismissed. The Delphic "not appropriate" hardly constituted adequate reasons. 

4. The matter was determined prior to the date that had been fixed by an order that was still in force. 

5. The Criminal Procedure Act mandates that allegations of summary offences are to be determined at a summary hearing . An ex parte determination on the papers in chambers is not a summary hearing. 

Button  thought that these "grave errors" might have been a result of a desire to do quick justice, 

The case has to go back to the Local Court, where it is to be heard by someone other than Madge Coombs.