ELSIE WALKER CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 246, 17 October 1929, Page 10

ELSIE WALKER CASE.

WRONG CRITICISM.

SOLICITOR'S OPINION.

POLICE CAN TAKE ACTION.

NEW INQUEST UNNECESSARY,

(Bj- Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

WELLINGTON, this day,

"The good people of Auckland seem to be barking up the wrong tree as regards the Elsie Walker Case," remarked a well-known Wellington solicitor to-day. "It may be that the law in New Zealand needs altering so as to allow, under certain circumstances, tliu reopening of an inquest, but to say that the course of justice is being hindered by inability to have the inquest reopened is a wide departure from the truth.

"The coroner's verdict, whether definite or indefinite, does not conclude a case. The police, if they have sufficient evidence in their hands, can proceed against any person or persons, regardless of the coroner's finding, to which they are in no way bound. In Elsie Walker's case the coroner's verdict was indefinite, but that does not mean no further stops can be taken to sheet home the crime, if crime it was, until the law is so amended that the inquest can be reopened.

■"If the police have additional evidence in their hands, as Is suggested, and this is strong enough to warrant the bringing of a definite charge against some person, one may be sure that this will be clone without delav."

The barrister pointed out that the coroner has discretionary power to admit all kinds of evidence at an inquest, much of which might not in a criminal Court be legal evidence. The evidence given at an inquest might be very useful to the police, but they might not oc legally' able to use it all when it came to making a definite charge against some person subsequently. "To imagine the' Elsie Walker case is definitely concluded because the coroner lias returned a verdict which does not accuse any person Is erroneous," he said, "as is also the idea of blaming the Minister of Justice for delaying the course of justice by refusing to be hurried in amending the law as regards the opening of inquests. In no way are the hands of the police tied. "In New Zealand inquests can be reopened apparently only if there has been some illegality in their conduct. In England, the law is somewhat different, and inquests can be reopened for other reasons. This is exemplified in the famous Bravo.poisoning case of 1870. Charles Bravo was a solicitor who died of antimony poisoning, and the jury at the inquest returned a verdict of suicid°. The relatives, however, were not satisfied, and finally obtained an order for the exhumation of the body. A fresh inquest was held, one which lasted three weeks, and at the end the second Jury returned a verdict of wilful murdeV against some person or ■ persons unknown. ,1 x