The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1930. AN UNFORTUNATE COURT INCIDENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 11326, 2 October 1930, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1930. AN UNFORTUNATE COURT INCIDENT.

It is not surprising that a good deal of comment 'should have arisen, in connection with an incident that occurred' during the hearing of an unsavoury case in the Police .Court on Tuesday. As is well-known, it is the general custom for a witness, after having given his or her evidence, to he invited to remain within the court. Tho reason-for detaining a witness is obvious: ho or she might again he called upon to enter the witness-box' arid it would not be in tho interests Of justice if a witness had to he recalled from outside the court-room after ho of she hud had ail opportunity of mixing' up with other'witnesses who had not, as yet, been called and of discussing with, them tho evidence lie or she hud tendered. If such a step appears justified as, for example, when a. professional man is urgently needed elsewhere or a , witness requires to catch a train, a magistrate may, of ; course, dismiss a witness immediately from' further attendance, after having received an assurance that lie or she w ill not bo required to' re“eittor tho witness-box. In the particular raise under' notice, two-women and three girls—witnesses for the prosecution—still remained ill court when the case for the defence came, on. They ’ were there only because; ‘tliuy had been instructed by the pol-' ioo lb remain in the room as is customary and certainly not because they could have had any wisli to be associated any longer with such a. painful ease. As it so transpired,, their feelings would have been studied if someone had intervened oil their behalf to enable them to he dismissed from further attendance. "Who might reasonably have so intervened we leave to our readers to judge. The general impression/ we consider, will ho that It would have been a. considerate act on flio part of the magistrate in ihe circumstances to have done so. In' any event, the witnesses could hardly have been expected to raise the point that their further attendance should be excused. Those comments on tlio matter would still .-apply even if it had been a case in which no exception could liave been taken to any references made to' the witnesses by defending counsel. Nobody would wish to see any undue restriction placed on a member of tlie legal profession in tlie matter of llio length ho might go to in commenting oh the. reliableness of tho evidence tendered by the Crown in any ease. But. more particularly iii view' of the"fact'that, in this stance, the witnesses were'still in court, defending counsel .unquestionably overstepped the mark in connection with certain' references to tho women and'girls' who had, only out c>f what they regarded as a public duty, tendered evidence in support of tho prosecution. 'ln’ giving his' decision next day, the magistrate, it will bd generally 'agreed, fitly characterised tho reference, in respected w hich one of the' witnesses’ rose to protest, as “most uncalled for arid ’ misplaced.”' The incident ' was most unfortunate, arid wo 7 think that, in such eases, women anil girls "after having tend-., ored their evidence—a most unpleasant duty-—should bo allowed to retire to tho ladies’ waiting, room until it becomes known that-they can he excused, from further attendance.