JURY ROOM SECRETS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIII, Issue 28, 2 February 1907, Page 9

JURY ROOM SECRETS.

o — ROYAL COMMISSIONERS' FINDINGS TnE CRICK-WILLIS CASE. An outline of the findings of Judge Fitzhardinge, who sat as a Royal Commission to enquire whether any person had been guilty of misconduct in connection with the recent trial of Crick, Willis, and Bath at Sydney, was cabled here laet week. Sydney files to hand give fuller particulars. The* report states: — ' AN EXCITABLE FOREMAN. " Of twelve jurors empanelled, five had had previous experience of criminal trials, four had had little ■experience, and threehad had no previous experience whatever. Albert Hamblyn- Warner had had some previous experience in civil and criminal trials, and as he was elected foreman of this jury ho had perhaps more opportunities of, and .reason for, • noticing what went on in the jury-room than his fellowjurors. Ho was of an excitable temperament, and prono to suspicion against his character for sobriety. Not even a hint was made against him. I find that he gave his evidence from a senso i of duty, and thnt on the wliole it was trustworthy, though I regret to report that he made a statement admittedly false when he wns ono of ths deputation to tho Attor-ney-General o'hen he stated substantially that ho was unaware of the sources from, which materials for the article in the Newsletter were obtained. As foreman of the jury ha s>eems to have formed his opiniou honestly that Felton had taken undue interest m tho pa?o and in what went on in the jury-room, so much so that he and others of the jury became suspicious, nnd agreed to cease all discussion Vhilo Felton was on tho jury premises. I find that they had, some reason for suspicion. As a' rat her, unfair and unwise attack was made on Warner, by the counsel who appeared for the Sheriff in his address, I have reported more fully upon Warner's evidence than upon that of any other witness. AN UNFORTtTNTATE MEETING. "It was contended that the suspicion entertained by some of the jury was well founded from the fact that immediately after the trial ono of the Sheriff's officers (Burgis), who had been in charge of the jury, and one of. the Sheriff's officers (Lamerton), who had been in charge of the accused, dined together with .Tim UncK, brother of ono of the defendants, in a public dining place in tho city. It was admitted by Rurgis and Lnmerton that tney were guests of Jim Crick immediately after the closing of the trial. I was satisfied that the meeting was purely accidental, .and had not been prearranged. At the same time it was unfortunate that such a meeting should have taken place. EAVESDROPPING NOT PROVEN. . "I find that tho officers who were appointed (Lane and Burgis) carried out their duties faithfully nnd well, except on three or four occasions, when they allowed Felton, another Sheriff's officer (not sworn in), to go into and remain in tho jury quarters when no excuso of duty could bo truthfully raised. On these occasions probably not much harm was done, yet it was most improper for these officers to be in the jury quarters when their presence was not required, and also very improper for them to allow n third officer, even though ha was supervising officer, so to remnin in the jury-room. On one other occasion after the caso was closed, and after the jury had retired to consider their verdict, two officers (Lane nnd Burgis) locked themselves and a third officer (Felton) in the jurors' quarters. Their presence"* behind locked doors was altogether unnecessary and highly improper. While these officers were in that position they were accused by the foreman of listening at the door of the dormitory. Ido not find that charge proved, though by their couduct and position the officers laid themselves open to grave suspicion. GRAVE INDISCRETION. "As to Felton, I find that on two occasions at least he committed very grayo indiscretions. On one occasion he discussed with a juror portion of tho evidence of a material witness (Webster), and probably the value of the evidence of a witness (Fisher) to be called on the following day; and on one occasion Felton made an attempt to ascertain from the foreman the juror's opinion of the address of ono of the defendants, and oi the presiding judge's remarks thereon. It is also to bo regretted that Felton, who was so often and for so long in the jury quarters, should on two or three occasions have been seen in close communication with the two defendants — Crick and Willis; and although I find that on those occasions there is no evidenco to show that ho disenssed any part of this case with either of the defendants, or disclosed anything that he had seen or heard in tho jurors' quarters (all tho evidence was to the contrary), yet ho had opportunity for so doing, and that very naturally gave rise to suspicion in the minds of some of the jury and added to the suspicion they already had that Felton was taking an undue interest in what went on in the jurors' quarters. Felton was also indiscreet in holding a conversation with the juryman Brown apart from his follow jurors, seeing that it was known by all the Sheriff's officers that Brown had expressed an intention to acquit tho accused irrespective of tho evidence. JURYMEN AND THEIR PICNICS. "At the outings (or picnics) to which the jury were taken on each Sunday, the Sheriff's officers on two occasions, and the_ driver of the coach on ono, had their midday meal with the iurors. That should not have been allowed. Jurors should on all occasions bo kept together and apart from all other persons. NO UNDUE INFLUENCE. "It was suggested that some of those, summoned as jurors were sounded as to their opinion in the case about to bo tried. On that matter Ihero is no evidence of any weight. In all probability no such interference happened. A JURYMAN CASTIGATED. "I do not find that the trial was in any sense, a farce or a travesty of justice. That the trial would in all probability be abortive was apparent to the foreman and to other jurors of experience so soon as ono of tho jurors (Andrew Brown), actuated either by ig•loranco, obstinacy, stupidity, or by some dishonest motive, stated almost at the commencement of the trial that ho had made up his mind to acquit tho defendants. Although 'when ho "was urgently requested by the foreman and his fellow jurors to consider_ his oath and decide the case on the evidence, he made a promise to di* so, yet as he apparently paid little heed to the witnossos"in court, and declined to discuss the evidence in the jury room, it was plain that he remained false to 'his oath, and that was moro clear when his wife on one or two occasions attended the court in company with Mrs. Willis, wife of ono of tho defendants, with whom she {Mrs. Brown) was laughing and talking; also at a later stage, when Brown made an application to one of the 'officers that a priest should bo sent for to advise him how to decide. With that rxcoption there was no apparent reason why the trial should huvc been abortive.