TO STAND TRIAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 58, Issue 194, 18 May 1938, Page 3

TO STAND TRIAL

INDECENT ASSAULT CHARGES. BLIND INSTITUTE DIRECTOR. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 17. On a number of charges of indecent assault oil males, Clutlia Mackenzie, director of the New Zealand Institute for the Blind, was committed 'by Mr C. R, Orr Walker, S.M., for trial in the Supreme Court. There were originally 16 charges, and on six of these the Magistrate discharged the accused. The case was heard in the Magistrate’s Court last Thursday and Friday. Mr A. H. Johnstone, K.C., with him Mr F. L. G. West, appeared for the accused, and Detective-Sergt. McHugh prosecuted. At the close of the hearing the Magistrate reserved his decision until lie had heard legal argument, to be submitted by Mr Johnstone. “This series of cases presents a number of unusual, and in many respects extraordinary, features,” said Mr Johnstone. “The accused is a man of hitherto untarnished reputation, who for 15 years has held the position of director of the Institute for the Blind, and he is now brought before the Court to answer 16 charges of having committed offences against persons who were at one time, or are now, inmates ol the institution.”

Three of these offences, Mr Johnstone said, were alleged to have taken place between four and five years ago, two between two and three years ago, four in 1936—a1l more than 18 months ago—four in 1937, and three in the present year. “These dates, in my submission, are of great importance,” said Mr Johnstone, “because it is quite impossible at this distance in time to answer charges which are so old and so stale. Who can say what he was doing on some date in 1933, or even later? On that ground alone all these cases should he dismissed.”

“ No Corroboration.” Mr Johnstone quoted authority in support of his claim. Counsel further submitted that these charges were made in regard to isolated events. There was no practice proved in relation to .any one person. What was alleged was that something in the nature of an examination was made upon some inmates of the institution, either upon admission or, in some few cases, upon leaving. These examinations were not accompanied by any kind of complaint or remonstrance to any person in authority. The witnesses appeared, for the most part at any rate, not to: have regarded what was done as acts of indecency oi, i indeed, even of impropriety. None of the charges was corroborated by any independent evidence. The evidence itself, Mr Johnstone continued, was of the slenderest possible kind, given in many instances by persons who were mentally backward, if net actually deranged. No Court would be justified in finding tnat a prima facie case bad. been made out in respect of a crime so gra f e, unit ss it was established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. He submitted that upon the evidence as it stood, without cross-examination or evidence in reply, it would not be pn.pa: or just to. commit tile accuseu for. trial. Even assuming, which was not admitted, that the facts had been proved, there was no evidence that in the circumstances they were indecent. It had to be remembered that, for a blind, man seeking information, touch very largely took the place of sight. Accused was the director, and was responsible for the welfare of tlie inmates,' most of whom were afflicted like himself. An act which might be prima facie indecent, because unnecessary, in the case of a sighted man was not necessarily so in the case of a blind man. The only object which the accused could have bad in making an examination was the ohtabling of information to assist him in helping those under his care to become useful citizens. ... , Counsel proceeded to criticise the evidence giveil by each of the police witnesses, and submitted that there was not a chance in a thousand that a jury would convict. “It is pure waste of time to send this to the Supreme Court for trial,” said Mi Johnstone, “and at tlie same time it involves much unnecessary pain and suffering to the accused. I appeal to you, sir, to dismiss the charges.” Detective-Sergeant McHugh said each of tlie inmates, on being admitted to the institute, was examined by a doctor, and there was a doctor in attendance there two or three times a week. This was not one isolated case; but there were 16 different charges. Out of 16 witnesses, only one was examined by Mr Johnstone, and. he was the only one of them on whose character any reflections could be cast. All the other witnesses were of unblemished character. The Magistrate said ho would dismiss six charges in reference to four complainants. “In connection with the other charges,” lie said, “I think it is my duty to commit the accused for trial to the Supreme Court. He will bo allowed bail at £3OO, and one surety of £300.”