GRAND JURY SYSTEM

Evening Star, Issue 14225, 26 November 1909, Page 3

GRAND JURY SYSTEM

THE CHRISTCHURCH CASE. [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, November 26. Mr Davey resumed the debate on the introduction of Mr T. E. Taylor’s Grand Juries Abolition Bill. In his opinion grand juries were simply an excrescence on the system of justice. Ho stated his belief that young Humphries would have been infinitely better off if he had had the privilege of being tried by a common jury. Ho advocated abolishing the grand jury and mixing those supposed to bo better educated and higher in the social scale with others not so high on tho common jury. If the grand jury wore retained, it should be open to the Press. As to the Humphries case, ho thought that the indictment should have gone to the common jury. Mr Davey went on to read a telegram forwarded by Mr Stringer, the Crown Prosecutor at Christchurch, to the Attorney-General, who had placed it at his (Mr Davey’s) disposal. In this Mr Stringer wrote : Tho Grand Jury examined only such witnesses as were on the back of the indictment. All these witnesses were called in the court below, but some of them wore called for the defence. These latter had been called on the question as to whether or not Humphries was sober at the time, and as they were highly respectable witnesses, I put their names on the back of the indictment, as 1 decided that it would be my duty to call these witnesses before the common jury, so as to put them in the possession of all .the reliable evidence available. There is no doubt that the facts were such that the Grand Jury ought to have found a true bill, and they were practically so directed by the Judge. Tho evidence as to sobriety was very conflicting, and the jury seem to have decided on that point, whereas it was really only a side issue. The real question was whether the motor had been negligently driven, and the evidence was called to show that, being under the influence of liquor, it was more likely that accused was reckless in his driving. In soifie cases, continued Mr Davey, the Crown Prosecutor was justified in placing the names of witnesses for the defence on the back of the indictment. Mr Taylor : Who is vonr authority?

Mr Davey said ho would not disclose it just them. Mr Taylor : Is it Dr Findlay ? Mr Davey ; No: a much higher authority than anyone in New Zealand. Ho went on to criticise Mr Taylor for having stated that Humphries was supposed to have been guilty for Captain Pavitt’s death, as Humphries bad been acquitted of the charge. The evidence in Humphries s favor to the effort that ho was sober was simply overwhelming, the witnesses who testified to this including Lieutenant G. J. Smith, M.L.C., Major Hobday, and Messrs Cowlishaw and Barroll. Mr Taylor had hinted at Masonic influence in a previous Christchurch case where a grand jury found no bill, but he had excellent authority for saying that only two Masons had sat on that Grand Jurv.

Baumc expressed the opinion that the work done by grand juries should be placed in the hands of an officer similar to the Crown Procurator in Scotland. As to the Christchurch case, Mr Taylor had said that the magistrate had held a special sitting of the Court to admit Humphries to bail, but the magistrate had merely followed a very common custom and admitted an arrested man to bail on Sunday. It was certainly open to comment that witnesses for the defence who bad not been called in tho lower court had been called before the Grand Jury. He wished also to draw attention to . the fact that some of the proceedings in the Grand Jury room were now public property. Mr Davey had not been correct in stating that Humphries had been acquitted. Tho throwing out of the bill did not amount to an acquittal, either in law or in fact. He could be proceeded against again in respect of the same charge. Mr Taylor, in replying, said that it was a most unfortunate remark of the Crown Prosecutor that as these witnesses for the detence were all highly respectable people he put then - names on the back of the indictment. The inference was that the witnesses for the prosecution were not respectable persons. This had been a “highly respectable” trial. Were he the Prime Minister he would, on the strength of this document, relieve Mr Stringer from the position of Crown Prosecutor.

The Bill was read a first time on the voices, and set down for second reading cm Wednesday next. 3 A BREEZE BETWEEN CHRLSTCHURCH MEMBERS. Mr Stringer s telegram explaining why the names of witnesses for tho defence were written on the back of the bill of indictment given to the Grand Jury formed quite a bone of contention after the first reading of the Bill. Mr Taylor had secured possession of the telegram after Mr Davey had demurred until he had obtained Dr Findlay’s consent. When the Bill had been read a first time Mr Davey went over to Mr Tavlor. who was busily engaged writing at his desk, and evidently mef a rebuff when he sought to regain the telegram. Mr Davey complained to the Speaker at this retention of his document, but Mr Taylor claimed that it belonged to tho House" To strengthen Mr Taylor’s position, Mr Fisher moved that tho telegram be laid on the table of tho House. On a division, this was negatived by 33 votes to 25. It was not entirely a party vote, Messrs Anderson, Bollard, and Nosworthy voting with tho’majority, and Messrs Clark, Ell, Hanan, .J. C. Thomson, and Sir W. J. Steward with the minority. .

Mr Davey then asked permiteion to move that the telegram bo tabled, but Mr Speaker decided that in view of the vote just taken he could not allow this, nor could ho accede to Mr Davov’s subsequent request that he (Mr Davey) seek the House’s permission to place it on the table himself. Mr Taylor still retained possession, explaining that he was filling in for his ‘ Hansard ’ proofs the extracts he had raid from it in his speech in reply. Once more Mr Davey lodged a complaint that Mr Taylor refuted to return the telegram, saying that it was no use appealing to the manliness of the member for Christchurch North, as he might as well appeal to a wall. “ There is not another man in this House,” declared Mr Davey, “who would dare to do what he has done.” Then addressing Mt Tavlor he said; “Your action is "one of the most

despicable that has ever occurred in this House.” Mr Speaker said that this expression must be withdrawn. Mr Davey withdrew it, and added : “It is rather difficult for mo to find words adequate to express my feelings. The hon. member may take my words for granted.” Mr Taylor : I don’t caro what you say. Mr Davey ; I have- already said I might as well talk to a wall, such is the political honesty you possess. . I don’t think there is another man in this Chamber who would have done what you have done today or treated another member with tho discourtesy you havo shown to me. Mr Taylor said that Mr Davey was making a mountain out of a molehill. Mr Davey ; It is no use begging terms. The incident shortly afterwards fizzled out. and the House went on to other business.