WOMAN’S RETRIAL

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 112, 5 February 1937, Page 11

WOMAN’S RETRIAL

Third Disagreement By Jury TWO MEN REFUSE TO CONVICT Fourth Hearing Mentioned To Chief Justice For the third time a jury has failed to reach agreement in the case of Isohel Annie Ares, also known as Craike, a married woman, of Hastings, who has stood trial at Napier and twice at Wellington on seven charges of unlawfully using an instrument to procure a miscarriage. The third trial was concluded in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), and a jury, the hearing having begun on Wednesday morning and finishing at one o’clock yesterday, when the jury retired. It deliberated for four hours, and returned at five p.m. “We are unable to agree,” said the foreman in response to the customary question. “Is there any assistance that I can give you on any point in the evidence?” asked his Honour. The foreman: There is no question of the evidence at all. There are two men who have made up their minds not to convict. His Honour: I do not know that you should have told me that. Seeing, however, that you have done so, it cannot be helped. What is the difficulty ; these two men made up their minds not to convict, or what? The foreman: Just what you say. His Honour: I am very sorry, gentlemen. It is very unsatisfactory. His Honour said that they might remember that he had said at the opening of the trial that he had made up his mind not to forbid the publication of the proceedings, though the Crown prosecutor had madfe application to that end. Wh.at he had had in mind, said the Chief Justice, was that it might be a very good thing that there should be a report so that the public should see the strength of the case. “It is very unfortunate that because of the action of one or two men here and there the whole jury system is brought into question.” “I will have to discharge you gentlemen as far as this case is concerned, and you will be required to attend tomorrow at 10 o’clock. If there is any gentleman who is called upon to serve on a jury and who makes up his mind that, no matter what the evidence is, he will not convict, he should say so at first because he should never be on a jury.” A Fourth Trial? Mr. H. B. Lusk, Crown Prosecutor at Napier, who conducted the prosecution, said he desired formally to ask for a new trial in order to consider the position; His Honour: You have heard what I have said and I do not wish to make any comment while there is question of a new" trial. It is extremely unusual that there should be a fourth trial. , Mr. Lusk: I presume I shall have to consult the Solicitor-General. His Honour: What do you wish me to do? >' Mr. Lusk: I ask yon to defer the order until I have consulted the Solici-tor-General. His Honour agreed to this course and accused was remanded to appear again this morning. At the first trial at Napier in August last year, the jury failed to agree after a retirement of the full four hours, and a retrial became necessary. Subsequently, on the application of the Crown, a change of venue to Wellington was ordered by Mr. Justice Blair, who presided at the second trial in October. The October hearing occupied three days, the jury again failing to reach agreement. When the trial was resumed yesterday morning -the Crown continued with its witnesses, whose eviednee was completed by 11.30. No evidence was called for the defence. "Very Improper View.” Addressing the jury, Mr. Lusk said the opinion had been expressed in some quarters that those who were participants in alleged operations of the kind with which Mrs. Aves was charged should stand side by side with her in the dock. This was a very improper view to take, and he would not suggest that a jury would subscribe to it. The Chief Justice: I shall tell the Jury that in this case there is only one simple question. The question is this: Did this woman use instruments on the persons who were witnesses for the Crown?

Counsel: “I proposed to state that question to the jury.” Mr. Lusk said the crime with which Mrs. Aves was charged was very serious as it meant taking the lives of potential members of the community. It could be proved only by the evidence of those who underwent the operations. Mr. C. G. E. Harker, counsel for accused, submitted in his address that the case for the Crown could not proceed without the evidence of the accomplices of accused, who were partners in.the operations alleged against her. He impressed upon the jury that in view of the character of the accomplices it could not safely convict. Summing up, his Honour said that a case against a woman was always unpleasant to try, but they had a duty to perform—he his; the jurymen theirs. It might be said by some people—lie did not mean that it was likely to be said by any of the present jury—that they had an objection to this law or that law, or the particular law under which the accused was being tried. But such a possible objection had no part in the case. What would be thought of a person who allowed his judgment to be influenced by his personal opinion of a particular law? There was no doubt as to what the law was on the present case. There were no complications in the case whatever. The issue could be very simply stated. It was solely a question of fact. All the jury had to determine was whether accused used the instruments upon the women who were the principal witnesses. It had been suggested to the jury that the Crown’s case could not proceed without the evidence of accused’s accomplices in the operations in which they were concerned. Of course, that evidence had to be secured, but it would be idle to suggest that corroborative evidence was lacking. On the contrary, ample evidence was forthcoming. The jury retired at 1 p.m. and returned at 5 o’clock announcing a disagree me’""