SAVED BY AN ALIBI

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 November 1931, Page 8

SAVED BY AN ALIBI

“CONFESSIONS” SIGNED. Investigation by instructions of the Criminal Appeal Department in Britain has revealed a strange case, in which two men were convicted for an offence of which they were innocent, and has resulted in the men being released by order of the Appeal Court. They were Alfred Brown and John Bruce, who were each sentenced at Lincoln Assizes to 21 months’ imprisonment for, it was alleged, breaking into a shop and stealing, among other things, some prayer books. Mr Sandlands, counsel for the men, gave particulars of what he called ‘‘this extraordinary case.” “I do not deny that both men are bad lots,” he remarked, “for both have been convicted several times.” The men were charged at Lincoln Assizes, counsel said, with shopbreaking at Spalding on a particular night in April last. It appeared that five weeks after the crime, Brown and Bruce were seen by a policeman looking into the window of the shop. The policeman exclaimed, “I should not be surprised if you two know something about t{he robbery from this shop.” Brown remarked, “What was taken?” and the answer was “Some prayer books and handbags.” Then Bruce observed, “If you want to question us the proper place is the police station, and not lhe street.” They went to the police station where the police officer remarked, “I am not satisfied that you know nothing about the robbery.”

The allegation went on counsel, was that each of the men wrote down a “confession” and signed it. A police inspector had sworn that those “confessions” were written in the charge room. Nothing was said about an alibi. Four days before the trial the men asked for legal aid. They claimed that they could prove an alibi and asserted that they were in the casual ward at Royston on the night the shop-breaking took place at. Spalding. The legal aid, however, was refused by Mr Justice Branson. They mentioned that they were in Royston Casual Ward on the material night, but gave no evidence. Since then the officials of the court had made inquiries and people in charge of the casual wards at Cambridge, Royston and Ware could be called to prove that the men were in those places on certain dates. Their evidence would plainly show that the men could not have been in Spalding on the night of the crime. IL was true that the police alleged (hat the men made “confessions” of the crime, but, remarked counsel, this was not the first case in which such confessions appeared as evidence. It was difficult Jo see why men signed) such documents when they were inno-j cent. It would appear plain that here the men had been wrongly convicted, i They asserted that they signed no 1 confession, but, in a dark cell, puti their names to what they thought was a “property book.” The Lord Chief Justice observed that the case was unfortunate for three reasons. The men should have indicated to the justices what their) defence was. That omission misled; the judge at the trial, who should, have allowed the men the legal aid they asked for. Had the men been represented by counsel, certain evi- ; deuce against them would not have) been admitted and the alibi would: have been fully investigated. In the circumstances, the trial was not satisfactory and the convictions would he quashed. Both men were released.