ALLEGED ILLEGAL USE OF INSTRUMENT

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 184, 2 May 1929, Page 15

ALLEGED ILLEGAL USE OF INSTRUMENT

“SPITEFUL AND VENOMOUS PROSECUTION” STRONG COMMENT IN DUNEDIN CASE Dominion Special Service. Dunedin, May 1. "It would not b» unfair for me to gay that in view of the evidence given this is a spiteful and venomous prosecution because this girl would not swear up to the briefs which the police held in another case. This is a thing that must be deprecated, and must not be allowed to be brought into our criminal law. It would be a sad thing for the law in New Zealand if this were allowed to go on.” So declared Mr. A. C. Hanlon in the Supreme Court this morning, when Myrtle Eliza Duncan pleaded not guilty to a charge of permitting an instrument to be used on her with the intent of procuring a miscarriage, and alternatively with using an Instrument oh about October. 20,1928. Mr. Hanlon appeared for accused. After a brief retirement the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. “The case is one of a well-known class,” said the Crown Prosecutor. “Two full statements were made to the police by accused following her illness. At that time no prosecution was thought of, but later events had brought about the charges. It was for the jury to. decide whether her full confessions were false or true. Further, they would have to look for some further corroboration. Corroboration was not altogether necessary, as there could be a conviction on the evidence contained in the girl’s confession. In this case they were not the least concerned with the person, if such a person were responsible, who committed the act on the girL” Detective-Sergeant Nuttall gave. details of an Interview in company with the police matron with the accused at her home. Accused denied that an Illegal operation had been carried out by a Mrs. Clark. _ In addressing the jury, Mr. Hanlon first paid a tribute to the fair way In which the Crown. Prosecutor had opened the case. He agreed with the assertion that the case was of a somewhat curious nature, as it was based on an alleged confession by a girl of her own guilt There was no question of sentiment but of justice to decide whether the girl was guilty or not. It was known that people had made incriminating statements that were absolutely false in some cases. “Looking at the circumstances of the case,” continued Mr. Hanlon, “I say that it is perfectly plain that this prosecution would never have been lodged if the police had been able to obtain evidence from the girl to convict another person on a charge of using an instrument upon her. The girl was never warned that if she made a statement she might be incriminating herself and that it might be used against her. If you think that such a course is proper and that the prosecution is genuine, convict her; but it is quite plain that it does not look a genuine prosecution and you are not going to lend yourselves to, one which, to put it mildly, is spiteful and venomous.” Summing up, His Honour said there was no evidence to convict accused on the second count.* The first count, however, would need their serious consideration. The question to decide was "How was the miscarriage brought about?” the rule was that when the police had decided to arrest a person no statement could be taken without the person interrogated being warned. The propriety of the, questioning did not enter into this case. The sole question was whether an operation had been carried out The jury had to decide whether the girl’s actions, first a denial and then a confession, were natural. , The jury retired at 11.40 a.m. and returned at noon with a verdict of not guilty, and prisoner was discharged. Later in the day Mary Jane Clark was charged that on September 10 she used an Instrument on Pearl Caroline Hislop with intent to procure a misMrriaae. A second count was of supplying an Instrument knowing the same to be unlawfully used to procure a miscarriage. Evidence was called, and after retirement of 20 minutes the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.