PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST EVERETT

Northern Advocate, 13 December 1937, Page 4

PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST EVERETT

-MR MORRIS

In connection with the charge against Percy William Everett of warning Charles Thomas Arthur Clark of the approach of a constable to a common gaming house, in order that Clark might avoid detection, Mr G. N. Morris, S.M., issued in the Magistrate’s Court this morning a statement regarding certain points raised during the previous hearing. This, the magistrate explained, was not a final decision, and, on the application of Mr R. K. Trimmer, counsel for the defence, the case was adjourned until January 17. The magistrate stated:—

Four Points For Defence,

“In this case, counsel for the defence has set up that the police have not established a prima facie case, and has four points: —

“(a) That the police have not proved that Clark’s house is a common gaminghouse. The evidence relied on is as follows: (1) That at 11.55 a.m. on the date in question a search warrant was executed at Clark’s house. This was executed a few minutes after the alleged warning, but was obviously granted prior to it; (2) That the police, on entry, took telephone bets. They failed to find betting material, but such evidence cannot be expected in any case of this type; (3) That defendant said to the police: ‘For all I knew you might have been doing Clark’s place (i.e., the house) at the time I rang’; (4) That Clark pleaded guilty as to bis house as a result of this raid. I have, not without doubt, accepted this evidence, but even if it is inadmissible, I consider there is still enough to establish a prima facie case on this point.

“(b) That Everett did not know that Clark’s house was a common gaminghouse. Everett stated to the police: ‘For all I knew you might have been doing Clark’s place (i.c., the house) at the time I rang.’ I consider that sufficient evidence on this point. Trima Facie Case Made Out.

“(c) That it is not proved that Evercit warned. Clark. The evidence is: T rang Clark and told him the police had gone into his shop. I did not tell him there was a raid on. Clark said to mo: ‘We are just about duo. It is a case of paying a license fee.’ ’ As Everett knew the house was liable to be raided, it does not appear to me to matter that ;-e could not be certain either that the house would be raided or that his telephone call would be in lime. He took the chance. But. in giving a warning, certainty is not necessary. A warning may bo given on a probability or a possibility. That is the position here and on this point also I think there is a case to answer. •'(d) That there is no evidence of mens rea. In the circumstances, there can be no direct evidence on this point. I think, however, in view of the evidence on the three previous points, that an inference of mens rea may fairly be drawn. Obviously, Everett’s telephone call was too late to assist Clark, with whom he is admittedly friendly, as to his shop. If the call was not made to assist him as to his house, I do not know why it was made. Possibly there is an explanation at present invisible to me. If so, it is for Ever'ett to give the necessary evidence.

“Considering the evidence as a whole, I consider that a prima facie case has been established.”