COURT QUASHES CONVICTION

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25678, 15 December 1948, Page 3

COURT QUASHES CONVICTION

appeal brought by COOK ISLANDER (P k^.’ > - . AUCKLAND, Dec. 14. An appeal against his conviction and by £ he Court of the Cook Islands was brought by a Cook Islander Kamatamata (Mr Baxter), before Mr Jusday Cbris^€ in the Supreme Court toto6ftre^nvJL’J>he ’ a PP. ellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment with hard vab°i? r n°f n po Cl \ arge of dealing copra to the value of £2 from a copra shed, and so AMfi mi n t n n Nr bUr ? l ? ry i The Court sat at Alon, on Niue Island. Cr^m G ;, S « R ’ Meredith represented the Cr ,° VKn _ at t,le a PP ea l hearing. said ‘21 at - apart from an alleged confession, there was nothing in the evidence that would justify the conu A na tive constable, Ikomotu, said he had pushed the accused and told him to tell the truth, but the accused kent saying that it was his own copra. The constable made an entry in his notebook, and when the accused read it over, he signed it. Another witness said he saw me constable push accused on the mouth, lhat confession was the only evidence of any crime being committed. Was it a free and voluntary one, or was it obtained under pressure, and therefore not admissible as evidence? There was other evidence that the constable said, “If you do not sign straight away. I will take you along and lock you up in the banana shed, and send for the Chief of Police.” There was nothing about burglary in the evidence, and even the alleged confession did not mention breaking and entering. In reply to his Honour, Mr Baxter said that island prisoners worked mostly on the roads, but they were held in custody, and did not go home at nights.

Amendment of Charge Sought Mr Meredith said he was bound to confess that the information was not in accordance with the crime of burglary, as defined by the Cook Islands Act, and he must ask his Honour to amend the charge to one of theft. In that case, the penalty would not exceed three months’ imprisonment. As tj the mode of taking evidence, in the case of two witnesses, they simply assented to written records of statements they had previously made. On the admission of the confession as evidence, Mr Meredith said that, to be admissible, the confession must be free and voluntary. His Honour: It is difficult to see how a blow on the mouth can assist a voluntary confession. Mr Meredith: 1 quite agree with that. His Honour said the only question exercising his mind was whether or not the accused could properly have been convicted of theft, had he been so charged. As to the ’so-called confession,” he said: “I think it would be unwise and undesirable that any Court anywhere should act on a confession so obtained.” His Honour said he was inclined to agree with Mr Meredith that the accused could have been convicted of theft, but he feared that if he did so convict him it might be assumed in the islands that' the Court was prepared to recognise or approve of that method of obtaining confessions. He did not wish to encourage any such thought in the minds of the native people. He would allow the appeal and quash the conviction.