“Onus Of Proof On The Crown”

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31121, 26 July 1966, Page 14

“Onus Of Proof On The Crown”

(Neto Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, July 25. Auckland lawyers do not agree with the suggestion by the Commissioner of Police (Mr C. L. Spencer) that persons accused in Court should be required to give evidence.

No person should be convicted out of his own mouth, several senior members of the legal profession said at the weekend.

“Under British law, which we follow, a person is innocent until he is proved guilty,” said Mr R. K. Davison, Q.C. “The onus of proof must always be on those who accuse him, rather than on the accused himself.”

Mr Spencer had raised two aspects of questioning, said Mr Davison the right of the accused to refuse to testify in Court and the right of the police to question suspects. Most lawyers would be strongly opposed to any change in the present system, under which no accused had to testify against his wish, and police questioning was governed by judges’ rules.

Mr F. H. Haigh said that he considered that the manner of police interrogation should be laid down by statute, and not just in judges’ rules. “Nobody should be required to answer questions of any sort if they do not wish to,” he said.

“The onus is on the Crown to prove its case. It is up to the accused to make his own decision on whether he talks in court or not But there can be no compulsion.” Mr P. A. Williams said: “If crime is increasing the reasons are mainly sociological and certainly complex, and the relatively few acquittals of those wrongly accused of crimes merely pays homage to our present system of justice.” World Admiration The traditions of English jurisprudence, the methods on which New Zealand conducted its criminal trials, were the admiration of the world and had largely been reproduced in the United States, said Mr Williams. “That powers of inquisition be bestowed upon policemen appealed to Hitler and Stalin,” said Mr Williams. “But let New Zealand never be known as the ‘police state.’ ”