ACCOMPLICE'S EVIDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 267, 8 November 1923, Page 3

ACCOMPLICE'S EVIDENCE.

ADVICE TO JTTRY. JUDGE AND COUNSEL VARY. "It is the practice to warn juries that the evidence of an accomplice be accepted with caution unless it is corroborated by independent evidence, but a jury is entitled to accept an accomplice's evidence even if not corroborated, if they consider it is true." That statement was made to-day to a jury at the Auckland Supreme Court by Mr. V. R. Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, and called forth a comment from his Honor, Mr. Justice Stringer. '"I am surprised," said his Honor, "to hear the Crown Prosecutor attempt in any way to whittle away the force of that rule of practice, if not of' law, namely, that an accomplice must be corroborated in a material respect. It is true it is not absolutely essential, but judges, for many years, with the approval of the highest Courts, have always advised juries that they ought not to accept the evidence of accomplices unless clearly corroborated. And it seems to mc no representative of the Crown ought to attempt in any way to whittle away the effect of that rule. In this case the rule seems to apply with special force, because the witness, Saunders, is first of all admittedly a thief, secondly he is admittedly a liar, and thirdly, which is still more material, he says he was prepared on a previous occasion to commit perjury. After the jury retired. Mr. Meredith said he had not attempted to whittle away the rule, but had merely stated the position as laid down in Rex V. Peterson in the Court of Appeal. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty in the case before them.