WITHDRAWAL OF A CHARGE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 860, 5 July 1910, Page 4

WITHDRAWAL OF A CHARGE.

STATEMENT BY DR. FDTDLAY. Replying to a correspondent, "X-BayE," who commented, in a letter in The Dominion yesterday, upon the recent withdrawal by the Crown Prosecutor at Napier, of a charge of indecent assault, after only 0110 trial, in which tho jury disagreed, the Hon. Dr. Findlay (Minister for Justice) states:— "The course followed by mo was In strict accord with the established practice.- The suggestion mado that tho Justice Department interfered with the drown ProsecuLor in tho performance of his duties is quite groundless. The fact? are these: Under Section 435 of the Crimes Act, the Attorney-General may at liny time after an indictment has been found against any person for any crime and before judgment is given, direct the officer of the Court to stay further proceedings. At must of the criminal sittings iii New Zealand, especially in the larger centres, after a jury has disagreed once, twice, or thrico in any case, the Crown* Prosecutor communicates the fact to the Aticruey-Gencral, and advises him to direct a stay of proceedings. This frequently takes place, and tho established practice is for the Attorney-General t.o rely almost wholly upon the advice of Lhe Crown Prosecutor. "If, after one disagreement on tho p-.u'l of tho jury, the Crown Prosecutor is clearly of opinion that the accused should not be convicted, and he so advises the Attorney-General, then unless there is some good reason for differing from the Crown Prosecutor, the AttorneyGeneral directs a stay of proceedings to be entered.' It is quite obvious that if a competent and. impartial Crown Prosecutor having heard all the evidence, and having seen all the witnesses, comes to tho conclusion that an accused person should not be convicted, it wonld requiro some very good reason on the part of the Attorney-General to refuse to stay proceedings. "In this case, . the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. H. A. Cornford) is a practitioner of very long experience. In a letter addressed to me officially in the usual way, he declared that he was not satisfied as to the identification of tho accused, and he emphasised his view by stating that 'were I on the jury I should not find a verdict, for the Crown.' He, therefore, concluded his letter by asking me to enter a stay. This letter, with my views, was referred by mo to the Solicitor-General, who also has power to enter a stay, and he agreed that in the circumstances a stay should be entered. Thus it was that proceedings in this case were stayed. "It is usual," added Dr. Findlay, "for the Crown Prosecutor to consult the presiding judge before he advises the At-torney-General in these cases, and in tjio absence of any information to the contrary, I assumed this course had beeu taken in the present case. It seems plain from the observations of Mr. Justice Edwards that he was not consulted in this matter, and this, I think, is to be regretted." .