WRONG USE OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Evening Star, Issue 23726, 6 November 1940, Page 3

WRONG USE OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

JUDGE'S CRITICISM [Pen United Press Association.] HASTINGS, November 5. The action of counsel in calling as witnesses Government employees in their official capacity was severely criticised by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) in the course of his summing up in a civil action in the Napier Supreme Court to-day. “ One or two things that have happened in this case have disturbed me because the administration of justice must always have the confidence and respect of the public,” his Honour said. “ In this case we have had the spectacle of counsel going to a person in a Government department and obtaining certain information—though not confidential information—and then calling that person as a witness in a private case that has nothing to do with the Government. , If that Government officer had been called as an expert witness there might have been some justification, but that was not the case. The man is not even an actuarv.

“ Secondly, a police detective has been called in circumstances in which he should not have been called. The police are not there to take sides anymore than Government departments. Here we have counsel, long after the accident, going with a detective to the scene in order to give evidence on behalf of private parties. In my opinion such action is wrong, because the police or some Government department may be prepared to help one lawyer and not another possibly because of friendship or common membership in a certain political party. “ You may think I have spoken strongly,” his Honour added, “ but I consider it my duty to speak strongly on matters affecting the administration of justice.” Early in the case a police officer had described how he went with counsel to the scene of a fatal accident and lay down on the road in approximately the position where a dead man had been found. A ear was driven towards him, and it was found that he was not visible in. the light of street lamps. His Honour commented that witness had taken a risk, but presumably it was a “ fair trade risk.” The case was one in which Sarah Whittingham (Mr C. W. Nash) proceeded against Bruce Woodward Ellison (Mr C. G. E. Harker) for £1,500 general damages and £3O medical and funeral expenses following the deatli of her husband through alleged negligent driving by the defendant.