THE. MEIKLE BILL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 241, 4 July 1908, Page 7

THE. MEIKLE BILL.

SECOND READINC DEBATE. The PRIME MINISTER moved the ,second reading of the 'Meikle Acquittal Bill, which stood "first on the Order Papor. ; The Bill is ; practically the same -me*Buro as last year's,: wliioh the : House , rejected. ; .. The , Prime ; Minister said ' t|iat hon. memberi would recall that last session/in consequenco of the Bill not passing the House,, he had intimated ho would refer, the matter, to the - judges of the Supreme Court: to- ; ascertain if' guidance-could' be obtained -upon.-certain' points, ! Ho had .communicated with' the Chief Justice, and would read Sir Robert Stout's letter, of April 13 last. This the Prime Minister proceeded to do: The Chief justice's Lotter., ■' > In 1 the letter, the Chief Justice said that a general (criminal appeal) measure would require "very .long and careful consideration. It' would, bo as well to' ascertain, how . the •Criminal Court of' Appeal, just established in England, would work v They also thought; tlie Court of Appeal-ought not to be , asked ta advise whether any, : and, if any, what compensation would; be payable. The .Court of Appeal as a Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction/to go into tho matter, and if it hiyl, the matter was hot one for a judi-cial-tribunal, but for Parliament, and tho Government, to'consider. If it camo before them it would be as before private individuals only. ■ This was a' matter in which no principles could apply, and they (the judges) were hot in a. bettor position to form an opinion than the general public. The question was one for. the public conscience to decide, of which the' Government and Parliament wore . the custodians. One point was that the Commission had' only found that the evidence _ was sufficient to warrant the jury not convicting. Their finding! would have been "not ■ proven" in a Scottish Courts The Commission had also' found that part of tho, evidonce' of .Meikle before them wa'si admittedly'false. ■ To Make It Clear.\ Sir Joseph Ward .said he wanted to mako it clear that to put flhrough the general legislation referred to wtfuld ne exceedingly difficult. In the matte\r. of -criminal legislation they should bo very Oareful before they went' as, far ev.en. as England- .The. judges, forming the commission ISad said' that if . the samo evidence had con\e .beforo 1 them at tho 'first trial they would .not have, found the' prisoner .'guilty. Did r.\ot this suggest that they should, pass this IfgislatiOn? Ho appealed to members that'personal feeling be not allowed to enter into the-matter. .The report of the Royal Comm\asiou . showed that something should be doneA V ' ■ Hovi Mush. - Mr. Parata: How .much is it going to cost the country? (Hear, hear.) . • Tho Prime Minister: The Government has considered that point. Not: having been able to get the judges' opinion, übey had dona their best to arrive at a jus);, conclusion. Tho circumstances of tho caso ivere entirely unusual. After thorough ana- long consideration they now proposed Ahat £5000 should bo paid as compensation. (Cries of "What?" and "Oh! oh I") • " I fflm stating what.tho Government proposes in full dis--charge in connection with the c.tse,''' returned the Premier. (Hear, hear.)! To Bo Remembered. , It had to bo remembered that tho Supremo Court Judges practically said that .Meiklo should have-been acquitted. ("No! nol") The' Government had approached the 'matter from the standpoint of tho sentence in tho Commission's report that under a • retrial with the new evidence Meikle wt'mld havo been acquitted. (Hear, hear.) Tksre must bo recognition of damago sustained , if a man had been wrongly, imprisoned. Ho quoted the Bcck case. He repeated tlia'i the Government was impartially doing ito duty, and moYed the second readinj;. Mr. Massoy's Complaint. Mr. MASSEY complained that.tho matter, in -accordance with the Primo Minister's promiso last year, had not been referred to tho Appeal Court, but to the-judges themselves. Tney therefore bad no recommendation,

and wore 110 furthor ahead than last year. Ho agreed that Parliament had _ its duty to do in this case. Briefly recounting tho facts of Moikle's case and tlie finding of tho two Supremo Court judges, ho said ho coincided that the relief proponed in the Bill should bo conferred. , Tlio -proppsed compensation of . £5000 might be too large a sum, but it was for Parlinment to name tho amount. Moiklo last year was said to bo not '!Who is porfect?" asked Mr." Massey. Mr. M'Lachlan: " None of us." (Laughter.)

In reply to Mr. Massey, the Primo Minister read letters between himself and the Chief Justice to prove that 110 had dono all that was promised last" year in referring the matter to . the Appeal Court. Mr. HORNSBY (Wairarapa) said ho would oppose the Bill .for the reason stated in the letter of tho Chief Justice. Every lino in tho lettor repeated in effect tho argument of those who obstructed the Bill last session.

"The verdict of tho Commission," said tho Chief Justice, "was tantamount to a verdict of not guilty." He proceeded thafcit would be an act of grosa injustice to single out qno individual bocauso ho, to a certain extent, held sympathy, when thore were men like Tricker (now dead, but whose misfortune rested upon' those left behind) and Freebody, whose petition had como before Parliament the previous day. Why were these names not' included. A Member: Move to include them! Reasons Against. Mr. Hornsby: If tho Prime Minister will include them or give his assurance that they will bo put . in, I will not oppose the Bill. . Sir Joseph Ward': I don't know the facts of . these cases. ' Mr. Hornsby: It is on rccord that their innocence has been established. In tthis case Moiklo is only proved not guilty.. 'As, proceeded , Mr. Hornsby, he could not get tho Premier's assurance, he would movri that the Bill bs road six months hence. Mr. Remington's Objections. / MR. REMINGTON seconded the amendment. In the oourse. of his remarks he-said that 'a junior coqnsol engaged in the dase, now' resident in Marrgaweka, had told him that Meikle was not entitled to one shilling compensation. Pressed by the Premier, i\o gave his informant's qamo. . Mr. J. Hutchison, of' Wellington,, had also told him (Mr'.i Remington) that the Premier had.said ho', was going to make the Meikle Bill one,of the measures of y the session,,and that'it was going through.' The Premier said ho had not seen .any member of the Meikle Committee' about .tho Bill. " v :" '. " / '!. ■ : . . Mr. Remington added that ho felt ho also had his duty to perform, and would oppose tho Bill. . _ MR. HANAN (Invereargill) desired to have a general measure, and his interpretation of the opinion of the Chief Justice was that- the Bill should be hold over till further information could be obtained from' Home. They should pause before they set up a precedent for tha world in this matter. Opposition Support. MR. HERRIES (Bay of Plenty) supported tho second reading: As to- the other aggrieved persons mentioned by Mr. Hornsby, Ho hop«d they would also get justice subsequently, -by special loginlation. /It was no argument to say that bcoause others required justice, Meikle. was to be refused'justice. MR. NGATA supported tho amendment. . MR. BATJME (Auokland Boat) said tho House should not shelter itself behind the ;faot that a court of criainal appeal had not •been oonstituted. -

MR. LANG (Manukau) spoko.in'a'similar strain, and hoped the Act. would bo passed. MR,. ARNOLD' (Dunedin South) asked if it would bo possible in--tho cominitteo stages to make' .tho Bill general, or to include the names of other .persons. ' MR. POOLE (Auckland Weßt) said that, last jear he had received a.lottor of intimidation' in connection .with.the Caso, but it had Jwjb comojrojn jTlie letter- had said fthat if ho (Mr, Poole) voted agninst'the passing of, tho Bill ■ last year, he would -bo; dealt with,. Ho.'had .not taken much notice of it. He spoko in favour of a, general measure, The : PRIM -MINISTER" (Sir _. Joseph Ward), speaking- to the amendment, ; in reply to Mr. Remington,_' said that the only ; person who had'interviewed him in this matter had been Moikle,' and ho thon.had l only saidlie intendod bringing- down , tho Bill. But oven had he been 6eon .by othors, what harm was thero? (Hear,.hear.) Tho Bill was first on tho Order Papor now, in order that it 'might bo passed. ■ . ' ' ' - ' The tea': adjournment interrupted th« debate. . " ' '--

The PRIME MINISTER, on the House resuming. said he hoped it would bo seen that tho Ml before the', House: was the only'.one' that could be presented. . .' It would be impossible to do. as Mr. Hornsby and other., mombers had asked r.nd mnko the Bill general. Ho would like to make it clear at onco. that the Bill wos on tho Order Paper, with tho intention, that it should be passed. , Other mombers carried on tho discussion, Mr. : Massey stating that he .saw ho callfor ' a. general measure. Let th 9 present caso be decided, and subsequent cases ;be dealt with separately. ' '■ Amendment Lost. ' 1 . Tho amendment was then put, and on a division being'taken was lost by .40 to 10.. ■' Discussion, was then cmitinaed oil the motion for tho seoond reiding. the Hon. 0. H. Mills '■ being, the only speaker. On division for the second reading ■ tho "ayes" were 41 and the,V " noes", 10, tho second reading being carried.