“PREVIOUS ACQUITTAL” PLEA

Evening Star, Issue 25895, 12 September 1946, Page 9

“PREVIOUS ACQUITTAL” PLEA

A RARE DEFENCE SECOND CHARGE ON ONE OFFENCE (P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, Sept. 11. Declining to enter a formal plea of guilty or not guilty, Mr T. A. Gresson, who appeared for William Maxwell Manchester in the Magistrate’s Court this morning, made a special plea of “ autrefois acquit.” Mr F. F. Reid, S.M., reserving his decision on the plea, said it was a matter of considerable importance and only occasionally came before the court. Manchester, a medical practitioner, aged 33, was charged with being in a state of intoxication in charge of a motor car on August 9. A similar charge was laid against him on August 10, and justices of the peace dismissed the charge when they refused a police •application for a remand and the police called no evidence. Mr Gresson submitted that Manchester had 'already been acquitted on the charge, and on this he based his plea of “ previous acquittal.” Counsel said the plea was an important way ol' ensuring the liberty of the subject, and protected him from unfair prosecution or victimisation. This principle of law had been extended, and nnder the Justices of the Peace Act if a case were dismissed on its merits a certificate to that effect could be obtained and would be an absolute bar to further prosecution. In the present case an application for a certificate had been declined, so that the defence had to prove an acquittal. Referring to the previous hearing, Mr Gresson said there were three courses open to the police. They could have applied for leave to withdraw the application, which would not operate as a bar to further proceedings, but did not do so. The police could have asked for a dismissal “ without prejudice,” but this would have been opposed. Thirdly, they could have proceeded to call evidence. The police had elected to do none of these things, and the information was dismissed. ‘‘ If the police can let a case be dismissed and then lay a second charge .for the same offence it would, in effect, permit them to choose the tribunal,” said Mr Gresson. For the police, Sub-inspector G. J. Paine said it was admitted that no person could be twice prosecuted for the same offence, but no man could be “in peril” until evidence had been given against him. In this case ro evidence had been called. Sub-inspec-tor Paine added that in defended cases brought on a Saturday morning it was the practice to apply for a remand till the Monday, and these remands were always granted, but in the present case the accused was remanded 'to a most unusual hour, 7 p.m., when there were no records or staff at the police station. *

It would not be proper to come to an immediate decision, said the Magistrate.