Supreme Court TRUE BILLS RETURNED ON EIGHT INDICTMENTS

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28573, 30 April 1958, Page 10

Supreme Court TRUE BILLS RETURNED ON EIGHT INDICTMENTS

True bills on eight of nine indictments were returned by the grand jury at the opening of the session of the Supreme Court in Christchurch yesterday. Mr Justice Adams presided. None of the cases, his Honour suggested in his charge, would cause the grand jury any difficulty. A no bill was returned on the indictment on a count of unlawful carnal knowledge against Kenneth Charles Gay (Mr B. J. Drake). The grand jury deliberated on the cases from 10.50 a.m. until 3.40 p.m. When the court resumed in the afternoon, the grand jury asked his Honour to explain the law regarding carnal knowledge cases. In three of the nine bills of indictment, the crime of carnal knowledge of a young girl was alleged, said his Honour. The accused were young men under the age of 21. There were no other sexual offences in the calendar on this occasion. One case was of assault causing actual bodily harm, there were three cases of theft, in one of which a number of offences, including that of breaking, entering and theft, one of car conversion and one of obscene language were involved. The grand jury’s task was to determine whether a prima facie case was established against the person charged, said his Honour. It was not its duty to consider matters which might be capable of being raised by way of defence, which would be gone into by the common jury if a true bill was found. Applying that to certain cases, it was a defence, in certain circumstances, in cases of carnal knowledge, that the person charged might have believed the girl to be over the age of consent, 16 years. All that the grand jury

had to do was to ascertain whether the act of sexual intercourse took place.

Evidence Not Discussed “I shall go very briefly, through the bills of indictment,” ’ said his Honour. “I prefer not to discuss the evidence if that can be avoided, because it is somewhat 1 embarrassing, in my opinion, for a judge to discuss in open court evidence in cases which he has not yet heard, not having heard the evidence nor learned counsel who may wish to represent the defence.”

The charge of using obscene language would, he thought, give the grand jury no difficulty. It was a charge of a somewhat less serious kind than the criminal charges usually coming before the court. The accused had a right to be tried by a jury and had so elected. The bill of indictment for car conversion contained four counts. The grand jury ought not to consider itself with the alternative charges. The alternative charges were inserted so that the common jury would be free to adopt its view on which was the proper charge. There was a case against a man named McCarthy of theft from a dwelling house of the sum of £6O in money and certain other articles, said his Honour. The alternative charges were of simple theft, making no reference to a dwelling house, and of receiving, knowing the property to have been stolen. He did not think the case of assault causing actual bodily harm, with an alternative charge of common assault, called for any comment from him, said his Honour. A man named McConchie was charged with the theft of a stop watch belonging to the Waimairi Beach Surf and Life Saving Association. Possession of Instruments Finally, the indictments against two men named Kinsman and Williams contained no fewer than seven counts. They were charged jointly on five counts and each with being a rogue and vagabopd in having in his possession, without lawful right, instruments—a jemmy bar and a hacksaw. “You will understand that possession of such articles may be perfectly innocent but the possession of them for breaking into houses may be a very serious matter,” said his Honour. If the grand jury required assistance on the facts of any case, he wpuld be happy to give it.