COATS CASE.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20412, 5 December 1931, Page 17

COATS CASE.

SENTENCE TO STAND. JUDGMENT OP COURf OF APPEAL. (rKISS A3SOCUTIOX TKLXGBAM.I WELLINGTON, December 4. After George Errol Coats wag conTicted at Wellington on November 11th of the murder of Pliillis Avis Svmons his counsel requested the trial Judge td( reserve for the opinion oF the Court of Appeal the following questions: "Whether the statement made by Goats to a police officer on July fctli was properly admitted in evidence a* the trial, and whether the trial Judge wrongly directed the jury in warning them that the life of accused- was not necessarily forfeit if he were convicted of murder. , The request was granted and the Court of Appeal, consisting of li is Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, Mr Justice Adams, Mr Justice Ostler, and Mr Justice Smith hear* argument on those questions to-day. Dealing with the first point, counsel for Coats, after reading the evidence of Detective Murray,, given at the trial, submitted that the form and nature of .the police investigation ana the examination of Coats was such'® s to make the statement made by him while at the police station inadmissible. He "contended that the conduct of the police in holding Coats from early morning till 1.15 a.m. the following morning was reprehensible, a statement extracted from him after * long wait at the police station *» likely to be an untrue and forral one.

Alleged Misdirection. Second counsel submitted that the statement made bv Coats was a break in the chain of the Crown's evidence, and as such was a "confession" within the meaning of Section 20 of the Evidence Act, and as that statement had been induced by a threat _ or promise that "it would be better, 'or trim to tell the truth" it was rendered . inadmissible„ by the provisions of tba* section. The judge in the Court below in Bumming up to the fury, had saw. : "If yon few that the Crown produce® such a ease as, satisfies yon bo mnrdered the girl, it equally your to bring him in guilty, notwithstanding that so far as this Court is concerned, the result will be the Mnposition of the gravest possible aentene* in this Court. I say this Court, because. as yon know, all sentences are considered by the Councfl." Counsel contended last sentence constituted a misdirection to thojury in that it would ten« to the jury feel that their iww" ment yrooM be independently considered again, thus removing . tvam their Bhoudsrs tho sens® of IJJPJ®® 1 * bility. which, by lav, they i He referred briefly to a, ruiuour wmc® he said had been current in ton Wore, and since the trial, tn« the Governor-General would not afflt a warrant authorising the into effect of the death penalty. The Solicitor-General, at tw.TWjWB* of the Court, very brieflv answared tw main ground of prisoner's case bysn«" mitting that the statement » question was purely a statement. aw* could not in any way be considered » confession within the meaning of tne Evidence Act. . Appeal Dismissed. The .Chief Justice, in delivering iudw»elb, said in his opimootfca woff "confession" in tfag ftwnw meant just wbVit it said, andjM mo**, i.e., an admission of gnilt of theottW* actually before t%C&art.* It thattho statement was not won. within the meaning" 30. * In any case bo the evidence before tho Court fraw that any threat or prqw3»* been held out to priwner Vlu^g* likely to have induced a sion of emit. He consideredtha* *» grounds had been shown whytheß»*£ Sent should he reacted. Asto **» second -point raised , on Drisoiier, -he said whether or not w §esirab!e for tho judge to trfl in a murder trial that tho »»»«»•* the Court would be «nia#K«l V Goveriwr-General-ui-Councu » a ;.g question which could not j>e ,in, the same way in all cas*. generally, he l&ought it ww flttj «J well'to avoid ttetwiente, JjjS depended on the f case. Tho Conrt in aire «wi* m <*g» only interfere if there >*d ; direction involving an e ?y was satisfied bo aadj been made, and m hut opißHlo tM Mff-i fiction should stand. ■> 1 • 1 Wtate * cwmgi , , Mr Justioe Adams, in «■*" counsel for prisoner haft presented their c?e«. utterly to convince him •*!*&. arguments which. nevenneiw®* w* Smith ajso conenrred with tta n«wra given .by the Chief Justice,, W* Ostler statingthat n* hw» 3g"*2 counsel for tie &^Y S research, had done all that conid P»sibly be done for "him. •