JURY’S VERDICT INVALID

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 September 1934, Page 11

JURY’S VERDICT INVALID

DEATH SENTENCE QUASHED. LONDON, July 27. An appeal by Warren Duane Smith, who had been given leave by the Supreme Court of Bermuda to appeal as a “poor person” against his conviction and sentence to death for the murder of Helen Smith and Morris Smith, two children, was allowed before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council yesterday. Lord Atkin, Lord Macmilland and Lord Wright composed the committee. Mr. Mintry said he had received from Bermuda newspaper reports which showed the Chief Justice (Sir Sydney Orme Rowan-Hamilton) had referred to this appeal and examined the substance of it in an address given to the jury in another prosecution, and had gone so far as to describe it as being a “frigid and calculated lie.” Lord Atkin: It is obviously very improper for a Chief Justice, or any judge, when there is an appeal pending, to make reference to the statements made in the petition. It certainly ought not to be done by reference in public in another court. Lord Wright: Most improper. Lord Atkin: I should think it is a matter that should be brought within tho consideration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Mr. Minty, continuing, said Smith’s counsel at the trial was informed that while the jury were staying, during the nights of February 14 and 15 last, at. their hotel they had access to files of newspapers containing reports of the previous day’s proceedings at the trial.

PRIVATE TALKS WITH JUDGE. After the evidence had been heard, the foreman of the jury was about to make some request to counsel and the Chief Justice said, “I think you had better come to me privately.” The Chief Justice then conferred privately with the foreman of the jury. Neither Smith nor his counsel was allowed to know the nature of the conversation between the foreman and the Chief Justice. After three hours’ deliberation the jury were unable to agree on their verdict. After a second private conversation with the foreman of the jury, the Chief Justice said to the jury, “You have been out now for three hours, and it*seems to me that the best thing to be done is for you to retire once more to the hotel and come back tomorrow at ten o’clock, by which time, after you have had a most excellent dinner, I hope you will probably be able to some to some agreement.” On the morning of February 15, the Chief Justice, having been informed that the jury were still unable to arrive at a verdict, said: “I am sorry you have not agreed on your verdict, but you will be discharged, and you

will be exempt from service on a jury for the next two years.” . Counsel submitted this direction amounted to a formal discharge of the jury and that they could not legally, thereafter, return a verdict of any kind. The foreman walked over to the Chief Justice’s bench and had a second private conference with the Chief Justice. Smith and his counsel did not know the purpose of this private conversation, but the Chief Justice said to The Attorney-General that he had had a message from the jury and, to the latter, he said: “If there are any witnesses you wish to hear for the defence you must come to your own conclusions as to why they were not called.” He then told the jury that if it was impossible for them to come to a verdict he would discharge them. They were then directed to find a. verdict, and, after a further retirement of thirty-five minutes, brought in a verdict of “guilty of murder.” Mr. Kenelm Preedy, for the Crown, admitted that, in the circumstances the verdict could not be supported as the verdict of a competent jury and that therefore the conviction and sentence could not stand. Lord Atkin, giving judgment, said, after the admission that had been made on behalf of the Crown, their lordships were of opinion the man had not been duly convicted because the verdict was one by a jury which was not competent at that time to give a verdict, having been disfiharged.