Page 3657 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Small Claims Court
MR HUMPHRIES (10.15): I want to make brief reference to a matter which was brought to my attention by a constituent. It is hard to see what else he or I can do about the circumstances of this matter, except for me to make some comments in the adjournment debate. This constituent was appearing as a party in the Small Claims Court and he claims to me that his scheduled hearing in the court was interfered with. He says to me that he was telephoned by someone calling himself Barry - I assume that that is a surname rather than a Christian name - allegedly from the Small Claims Court, to say that his hearing time had been changed.
Members may be aware that the people at the registry of the Small Claims Court - in fact, of any of the courts in the Territory, to my knowledge - do not change hearing times by ringing people up and telling them over the telephone. Of course, consumers, ordinary citizens who might be unfamiliar with the processes of the court, are unlikely to be aware of that. In this case my constituent was called and told that his hearing time had changed from 9.30 am on that day to 12.30 pm on the following day. He was also quoted the reference number - - -
Mr Berry: That sounds like the other party.
MR HUMPHRIES: I will not comment on that suggestion, but I suppose we can draw our own conclusions. He was quoted the reference number of his case. My constituent asked for the name of the caller but felt reassured when he was quoted the reference number. He thought that must indicate that it was someone from the court.
Mr Wood: The other party would know that too.
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed. He fronted at 12.30 the following day and was told that his case had been heard at 9.30 the previous morning; that he had not appeared; and that judgment had been entered for the other party. The Small Claims Court registry knew nothing about the change of time and day, and knew that nobody called Barry was working there. My constituent obviously had been misled.
Mr De Domenico: Are you sure it was not Berry?
MR HUMPHRIES: It was Barry, I think, not Berry. Madam Speaker, I cite this case. I recount the facts of this matter as a warning to citizens that sometimes the processes of justice can be arcane. It is easy to fall into the trap of believing everything that we are told by people that sound as though they are in authority. If others can learn from the lesson of this case it would be a salutary lesson for them.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Assembly adjourned at 10.17 pm
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .