The Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1878.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 80, 3 April 1878, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1878.

A defect which exists in the machinery of the law in reference to the criminal business of our Courts was made the subject of comment by Mr Justice Richmond in his charge to the Grand Jury in Wellington on Monday last when he made the following

remarks:— "l do not anticipate, that any cause for the direction as to thfe performance of your duty will arise in your jury roonh In one or two of the cases, certainly, the depositions suggest that the cause of the Crown needs strengthening, and very probably, the evidence might be strengthened, but I do not think I need say anything to you about it. lam always averse to notice in detail the particulars of the cases coming before the Grand Jury. la one of the cases — a charge of horse-stealing — the evidence against the person appears to be of that kind which arises from the fact of certain horses having been stolen, and the prisoner's having been found in what the lawyers call recent possession of them. Ido not think it necessary to give you any special direction abou . that case. I made the observation for another purpose, namely, to point out that some cases for the Crown appear to need strengthening. Such has been my experience generally as a criminal Jiidge; The fact) I think, arises out of a defect in our riiaclunery, affectiiig the criminal business of the Court. Ido not blame the Crown Prosecutor, because it appears that they are paid for nothing but presenting the case to Court, and as a consequence, it frequently happens that the depositions are sent in in a state which would suggest to the competent criminal lawyer the necessity of additional evidence; this, it appears to me, arises because no person is charged with the professional prosecution from the beginning, and therefore, no doubtj guilty persons frequently escape from our Criminal Courts. It is also parlly caused by the division of responsibilisy between the police who institute proceedings and the magistrate, who to a certain extent supervises the prosecution by granting remands as they may be deemed necessary; and lastly, the Crown Solicitor. No doubt, where very grave prosecutions are concerned, the Government x ikes exceptional care in the matter. But I have known other cases in which there was great danger of the prosecution failing altogether, notwithstanding the existence of sufficient proof, because of the want in the machinery for public prosecutions." All who have ever attended a Magistrates' Court when a prisoner is brought before the Bench charged with an indictable offence must agree with Judgeltichmond that there issomething faulty in the procedure in such cases. In the first place it is undesirable that the prosecution should be left solely to the Inspector of Police, who may be an excellent officer, so far as his duties as the head of the local police force are concerned, but at the same time be totally uufit to conduct a case in Court. Indeed it would be quite as reasonable to expect that, because a man has been brought up to the bar he should be able to undertake the charge of a body of police as to suppose that an Inspector of Police, qua Inspector, must possess the ability and special knowledge required to conduct a prosecution. The depositions, which are the result of the Inspector's examination are then forwarded to the Crown Prosecutor, who thus for the first time becomes aware of the charge, and the details of the offence, and, perhaps in a day or two, he is required to appear in the higher Court fully prepared to proceed with the prosecution, although he may be perfectly well aware that the case "needs strengthening " — as Judge Rich raond puts it— and might have been strengthened had it been placed in his hands at the outset. Thus, there is a divided responsibility, and, as all experience tends to show, a division of responsibility virtually amounts to tne em ire absence of responsibility. Were all indictable offences handed over by the Police to the Crown Prosecutor from the very commencement, there would be less of that "danger of prosecutions failing altogether, notwithstanding the existence of sufficient proof," of which the Judge so justly complained.