Proposed Submissions Questioned By Court

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30178, 9 July 1963, Page 10

Proposed Submissions Questioned By Court

“I have a duty to my client to raise these matters. The Court must be concerned with truth and justice. I have tried to act with responsibility in this matter, and do not intend to abuse my position of privilege. I wrote to the police setting out all the matters which I intended to refer to, and asked the department to verify them.” Mr A. Hearn made these remarks in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday when Mr E. S. J. Crutchley, S.M., and Senior-Sergeant G. M. Cleary questioned the right of counsel, in making submissions in mitigation of sentence, to mention “certain propensities” of the main prosecution witness. Mr Hearn was appearing for William Leslie Campbell, aged 31, a painter and paperhanger. Campbell was appearing for sentence on a charge of assaulting a female. Pamela Dawn Hillier, a police constable, on May 11. He was again remanded on bail to July 15 to enable Mr Hearn to bring evidence in support of the submissions he intends to make.

The charge arose out of a fight between Campbell and Hillier over the use of a public telephone box at the corner of Christian street and Aorangi road. Campbell said in evidence that Hillier struck the first blow and that he did not know she was a female. Since the case had been heard a number of persons had come forward and volunteered 'information to counsel and other persons about the matter, Mr Hearn said. It placed him in a difficult position, as he did not want to make any irresponsible allegations. “But I have a duty to my client, and I have done my best to verify this information from the proper source,” said Mr Hearn.

"Almost Complete Denial” Senior-Sergeant Cleary said the reply Mr Hearn had received from the police was almost a complete denial of all the matters mentioned by him.

The Magistrate said that when the case was heard decision was reserved as to whether Campbell should be convicted of assault on a female or whether the charge should be reduced to one of common assault. Campbell did use the boot, and the assault wint on so long that a conviction on the more serious charge was warranted. “Surely provocation is a matter which should be considered in mitigation,” Mr Hearn said. “If the matters I intend to raise cannot be admitted then I may take other action. It may be proper to apply for a rehearing to enable fresh evidence to be produced..” A person whose character was attacked in such circumstances had no opportunity of answering the allegations, the Magistrate said. He then asked whether the matters referred to concerned the character of one of the witnesses. Mr Hearn: Not so much character, but more as to the propensities in a certain direction which are relevant to what happened that night At this stage the Magistrate adjourned the Court for a short time to consider the matter.

When he returned to the bench the Magistrate said the Court was concerned that the accused should be able to bring forward all proper mat-

ters regarding mitigation. But when the character or prosperity of a witness was raised it was not proper for the Court to hear those matters, except on evidence. “The Court is not entitled to hear fresh matters against a prosecution witness without evidence,” said the Magistrate.. “The Court does not want to stand in the way of the defence raising any matters in mitigation. It is obvious the matter concerns the chief prosecution witness.” “Singled Out”

When beginning his submissions, Mr Hearn said that when a plea for mitigation was made it was often said that publicity was part of the punishment. Campbell had been singled out from other persons for a rather special form of punishment. Campbell’s name, age. and occupation, he said, had been put over the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation's radio and television news service when the case was first heard and when he was convicted. The reports included a few lines which were supposed to be a summary or comment on the case. “To select one case out of hundreds is a little unfair.” said Mr Hearn. “The public may well wonder about the value of such a news service because from my inquiries I have ascertained that there was no N.Z.B.C. reporter in court on either occasion. “The Supreme Court in Pennsylvania has ruled that news gathered by a newspaper could not be used by radio stations or other competitors without the newspaper's permission,” Mr Hearn said. The Court was not concerned in giving directions as to how publicity should be given, said the Magistrate. That was a matter for the newspaper and television authorities. Comments were entitled to be made on matters of public interest, and the Court should not place any obstacles in the way of such action.