CHILD WITNESSES

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XXXXI, Issue XXXXI, 12 June 1920, Page 5

CHILD WITNESSES

QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY

The credibility of young children as witnesses was discussed at some length in two cases that came before Mr Justice Chapman in the Auckland Supreme Court recently in connection with a charge against George Kelly, a retired miner living in Auckland, that he indecently assaulted a girl of seven years at Avondale on March 3. The only direct evidence was given by the child in question. Counsel for the accused, Mr Endean, after endeavoring to crossexamine the girl, remarked that chil- I dren were only capable of giving par- ! rot-like evidence. Mr Justice Chapman: "That is not so. There is no -better class of witness." Mr Endean contended that the jury should receive the child's story with cautionj and asked whether it was safe with such evidence, and according to their idea of justice, to find accused guilty of the alleged crime. | His Honor said that sometimes there was a difficulty in regard to identity when young children were witnesses, but accused had himself overcome that difficulty by admitting he had given the little girl ice cream, and that he had observed her in the vicinity of the scene of the alleged offence. But the girl herself also recognised him, as well as slightly older girls who had given evidence. The evidence of the youngest girl was corroborated by the mother. As regards the child's story, it had not been a parrot-like repetition in the first instance, when she told it to her mother. After a short retirement, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and accused was remanded for sentence. A girl of four years and eleven months was the principal witness against Joseph Varrela, 19 years of age, who was charged with having: indecently assaulted her. His Honor, _after questioning the child as to telling the truth, stated that in the case of extremely young children he often found that the difficulty was to ascertain whether the child understood the meaning of its promise to speak the truth. That was often a greater difficulty than getting a narrative of what had occurred. The child in this case understood her promise, and therefore was able to give her evidence. Legal authorities spoke of the minimum age as something like four years, and his Honor had found that was somewhere about the limit. •«

Counsel objected to the child's mother giving evidence as to her daughter's complaint to her, on the ground that she had* put a leading question to the child. The child had indicated to her that the man had interfered with her, whereupon the mother cried out: "Tell me what has the man done to you." The Hon. J. A. Tole, who prosecuted, argued that if the child had said the man had been rude to her the mother would naturally ask what ne had done.

His Honor held that the objection, which was based upon an Appeal Court decision, could not be sustained, as the child had volunteered the statement before she was questioned. Counsel also objected to a brother, aged six years, giving evidence that his sister had told him she had been as^ lted .in tne alleged. The objection was overruled by the J™g c- —Wellington Post correspond-