Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE SATURDAY, JANUARY 26th., 1929. WALKER ENQUIRY

Greymouth Evening Star, 26 January 1929, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE SATURDAY, JANUARY 26th., 1929. WALKER ENQUIRY

yiiE mysterious circumstances

under which the young girl, Elsie Walker, met her death, aroused great public interest, particularly in Auckland, where the case has been featured in the Press, and every incident in connection with it, vigorously discussed. The heat from this controversy was not

absent during the proceedings at the Coroner’s enquiry, some of the exchanges between Mr. Hunt S.M., who presided, and Counsel, not adding to the dignity of the Court, nor assisting to elucidate the mystery.

The Coroner returned a verdict that the girl’s death was due to some unknown man, the evidence being inadequate to identify him. Such a verdict was not unexpected, and it leaves the affair as mysterious as ever, and the crime—if crime it were—will probably have to be included among the Dominion’s list of unsolved misdeeds. It is regrettable that such should be the result of the extensive in-

vestigations, as every miscreant who escapes due penalty, adds to the possibility of further crimes, either by himself or others with similar instincts. Coroner Hunt during the enquiry, and when/ giving his verdict, commented adversely on the police handling of the case, declaring that it was possible suspicion might rest against a perfectly innocent man for the rest of his life, which might have been avoided had prompt and intelligent inquiries been made. Doubtless, the proper authorities will take notice of the Coroner’s

criticism, and learn any lesson

available from any police failings in this particular case. Regret that the perpetrator of the crime goes free, should not, however, tempt the public to make scapegoats of the police taking part in the investigations, although it may apear that some of their actions were casual for so important a matter. I Every district policeman or city detective cannot be a Sherlock Holmes or other fictional expert, able to sheet every crime home, and New Zealand is not alone in having unsolved crimes in its records. The Coroner’s comments may do the police concerned a lifelong injustice, and perhaps affect the future careers of those who may have striven conscientiously to do their duty.

The police might retaliate by declaring that the proceedings at the Coroner’s enquiry could have been conducted better, as with all due respect, it is not edifying when Coroners and Magistrates wax too dogmatic, or show apparent bias. Any dissatisfaction with Auckland cases recently, Avjill not be confined to the police. The leniency extended to two men, described by the police as “hoodlums,” who assaulted two visitors on New Year’s Eve, and who were merely ordered to pay £l5 towards their victims’ expenses, was very difficult to understand, and this is not the only case where Auckland magistrates have surprised the public. The magisterial actions and decisions may have been justified, but not on the evidence produced. The last thing desirable in the cause of justice is to have friction between the Bench and the police. That would be as bad as the Court accepting police evidence unquestioned. When the police, however, do seem to have established a serious charge, it is not fitting that the offence should be treated as of no account. The desire to give offenders a chance to reform is, quite rightly, a fundamental rule of New Zealand Courts, but the quality cf mercy should not be strained at the expense of justice and the real public interest.