POLICE METHODS.

Northern Advocate, 10 February 1920, Page 1

POLICE METHODS.

JUDGE'S ADVERSE CRITICISM. IN WELLINGTON CASE. ACCUSED DISCHARGED. WELLINGTON, Feb. S. A\ the criminal sessions of the Supreme Court, Mr Justice Edwards presiding, Ava Alley and Gertrude Martin were placed in the dock to answer a charge of conspirirg to procuro miscarriage. There were three counts iv the indictment. Mr P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown, Mr T. M. Wilford for the accused Alley, and Mr W. Perry for Martin. Both accused pleaded not guilty, and before the jury was empannelled, Mr Wilford said that he desired on behalf of his client that the trials should be separated. His Honour w r ould notice that in the indictment there were three charges—(l) that with the intention of procuring miscarriage accused had attempted to use an instrument; (2) that the two accused had conspired for tho purpose, and (3) that Martin counselled Alley to commit the offence. Mr Wilford said that in the Magistrate's Court the charge was conspiring, and after accused had been committed for trial, the Crown added the other two charges as it had a right to do. He would not have made the application had the Crown confined itself to the charge of conspiring, but as the other charges had been added he thought that his learned friend should consent to the severance, of the cases, for what was evidence in one ease was not evidence m the other. Mr Macassey opposed the application, and his Honour decided against Mr Wilford. Mr J. H. Fuller was foreman of the awryEvidence was called by the Crown cnly. His Honour, in his summing-up, said the evidence disclosed that a detective had obtained a statement from a witness (White) aftor the latter had been kept at the office for about one hour and a-half. Tho woman was not there of her own volition, but was in reality under duress. It was important that crime should be detected, but not in such a fashion, where a person was practically trapped and a statement squeezed out of her. It was absurd to suppose that the statement was given voluntarily. He was not blaming the police officer, who no doubt acted conscientiously, but their views were not his, and were not in accordance with English practice, because the person who was being questioned had no protection. His Honour very much deprecated such a course of action and trusted that in future it would be unknown. Reviewing the evidence, his Honour said there was no corroboration of White's statement that an illegal operation had ben performed, and there was no evidence of conspiracy. Referring to the case against Martin, his Honour said the only evidence against her was contained in a statement made to the police by White, and her own admission. Martin had had a statement squeezed out of her, but Alley, by wisely holding her tongue, was bound to be acquitted unless tho jury preferred to disregard his direction. It would be unsafe to convict Alley on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, and it. would amount to a legal absurdity to find Martin guilty and. acquit Alley on the same evidence.

After a retirement of about 15 minutes tho jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts against both prisoners, who were immediately discharged,