ELSIE WALKER CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 197, 21 August 1929, Page 9

ELSIE WALKER CASE.

LATEST DEVELOPMENT REOPENING AN INQUEST. DOES AUTHORITY EXIST 1 BARRISTER EXPRESSES DOUBT. Although Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., suggested to the Crown Prosecutor tha the Elsie Walker inquest be reopened 3r a prosecution for perjury instituted considerable doubt exists as to whethe ander the New Zealand law, any powe exists to reopen an inquest. An eminent Auckland barrister, whosi opinion was sought by the "Star" 01 the point, said: — "Authorities are extremely scant There is power vested in the Suprenn C!ourt vfor quashing the inquisition (ic est), verdict or finding, of the coroner This jurisdiction is exercised very fre juently in England and there are manj authorities that can be referred to Apparently the power to hold a seconc inquest is derived in England from ar Act of Parliament which we have no; in New Zealand. "There i 3 legal authority for the vieu that a coroner's verdict may be quashet upon the application of the polici authorities, made with the acquiescent of the coroner, that they are dissatisfied with the verdict given. There is con siderable doubt whether, after thi verdict has been returned by th( coroner, the proceedings can be re opened. In certain cases of purelj technicalities, or where the coroner misdirected the jury, or where the verdict was defective, there i 3 a common law power to apply to the Supreme Court to quash the inquisition and hold a new inquiry. "In 1860, in the case of the Queen versus White, it was decided that, an inquest having been held upon view of the body and a verdict given, a coroner could not of his own motion, hold a second inquest. English Act Not Applicable. "Apparently to overcome the grave inconvenience of this state of the law, The Coroner's Act of 1887 was passed in England. This Act has no application in New Zealand, but it authorises the High Court of Justice, if an application is made by the Attorney-General, that he is satisfied that an inquest has been held and that by insufficiency of inquiry, it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest be held, the Court may order mother to be held. New Zealand legislation relating to coroners confers no such power on the Supreme Court. "In the case cited, the Queen v. White, the facts were that the coroner held aji inquest on May 17, 1800, at which a veriict was given that deceased died by the visitation of God.' On tha following iay, before the body was buried, the coroner received further iniormation and upon that he deemed it hi 3 duty to hold a. second inquest, being of the opinion that it occasioned further inquiry. At the second inquest a verdict of wilful murder against White, as the principal, was returned, and against Fisher as accessory. The full court of the Queen's Bench Division was moved to quash the second finding. In the judgment delivered by Chief Justice Cockburn, he said that the Court had the authority of Lord Hale and the uniform practice in support of t the proposition that the coroner could not hold a second inquest while the previous inquest was still existing. Cockburn, C.J., also said the coroner in holding an inquest performed to a certain extent an official office and discharged his duty as soon as hi 3 verdict was given. A Very Peculiar Case. "It appears that from these views," the barrister concluded, "that a case of a very peculiar description has arisen. Apparently further evidence of material value is available, which may or may not influence the coroner. It would seem that it is not open to the coroner to reopen the inquest for the purpose of hearing thi3 evidence. This rule appears to have found the occasion for inconvenience in England and in 18S7 an Act was passed altering it. No similar statutory provision exists in New Zealand. "It thus must be seen that it is at least open to question whether, under any circumstances, the inquest can be renewed or retopened. This case appears to be one in which the Government ought to take action and the necessary clauses from the English Act followed. Indeed, it may be said that z.bill should be parsed by the New Zealand Parliament."