INNOCENT MAN ARRESTED

Evening Star, Issue 21991, 29 March 1935, Page 12

INNOCENT MAN ARRESTED

PETITION FOR COMPENSATION “ KING CAN DO NO WRONG" [From Oob Paeliamentaev Repoetm.] WELLINGTON, March 28. “ The King can do no wrong.” This well-recognised legal doctrine was the basis of a recommendation from a Parliamentary Select Committee in tbe House this afternoon when it reported on a petition from H. T. Scott, of Hamilton, praying for compensation for an alleged miscarriage of justice. The Public Petitions Committee (A to L) reported that it had no recommendation to make, notwithstanding the fact that, in its opinion, the petitioner had established his innocence beyond doubt. The facts of the case, as outlined by Mr Stallworthy, were x-eraarkable. He described it as a case of terrific bardt ship. Scott was arrested and charged with breaking and entering a house at Hamilton, and was committed for trial by a stipendiary magistrate, but on the day before the Supreme Court trial it was suggested that the man was innocent, and that an individual then in Mount Eden gaol was the culprit. Questions were put to this prisoner, who confessed to . the crime for which Scott had been committed for trial; and at the Supreme Court petitioner’s innocence was established. It was shown that he had had no chance of collaborating with the person who took the responsibility for the crime. Mr Stallworthy declared that in the interests of the liberty of the subject, the Government should meet this situation. . For three months petitioner and his mother underwent a great deal of mental stress, and some amount of ignominy, and notwithstanding the fact that the committee could make no recommendation, he trusted the Government would deal fairly with the case. Mr Sykes: The King can do no wrong. Mr Stallworthy; But, the committee felt a great deal of sympathy with anyone who was placed in such a position. Mr Lye, chairman of the A to L Petitions Committee, which had heard the petition, declared that the state-, ment that Scott _ was wrongfully arrested was without foundation. On August 30 there was a breaking and entering crime committed at a house in Gray street, Hamilton. Next day Scott was arrested on that charge. Immediately he was arrested ho made no effort to assist tbe police by accounting for his movements on tbe previous afternoon. On the contrary, he stated that he was at home, though the police ascertained that he was in Gray street on the previous afternoon selling unauthorised art union tickets. When reminded of this, he said it was so, but he had forgotten. Ho had to admit that he was in the street at the time of the offence. He gave a statement to the police that he was at one particular residence there at a certain time, and at another time indicated that he had called at a second house. The police not being satisfied, they arranged for an identification parade, and it was remarkable that two second-hand dealers who came to. this parade had no hesitation in saying “ this is the man.” Could anyone sav, added Mr Lye,, that the police did wrong in arresting petitioner and charging him with breaking and entering? He went before a magistrate, and there was sufficient evidence to warrant committing him for trial. No defence was put up until the second day of tbe trial, November 22, over three months afterwards, when, according to petitioner’s statement, his mother got an inspiration from reading the newspapers that a man in Mount Eden Gaol _ awaiting sentence for a number of similar cases of breaking and entering during daylight was the guilty person. This individual was approached and eventually admitted responsibility. It was the opinion of the Crown Solicitor that there was no question regarding Scott’s innocence. However, he believed that, on the facts he had mentioned, the police would have been failing in their duty had they neglected to hold_ Scott on suspicion and provide for an identification parade, because immediately after the theft occurred the goods were sold to second-hand dealers. In the absence of other evidence the police had no other course than to charge Scott with the offence. As for the question of law involved, Mr Lye stated that in every part of the British Empire it was accepted as a general rule that no court could accept responsibility for compensating persons where the police failed to secure a conviction. If this was not the case it would have .a very harmful result in forcing the police to strain every nerve to obtain a conviction. In this case there was no reason why the usual practice should be departed from. Every case involving great suspicion should be brought before the court for investigation. Owing to the high degree of modern education it was becoming increasingly difficult to sheet home offences, and therefore Parliament ought to be very careful not to hamper the police. Members should have a sense of responsibility, and not hamper the course of justice, for it would be a bad precedent to establish that the Crown should compensate people who were charged with offences and acquitted. The committee’s report was adopted.