ALLEGED PERJURY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 19 November 1937, Page 2

ALLEGED PERJURY

WAS IT A CONSPIRACY ? PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTER'S FINDING lfrom Our Own Parliamentary Reporter] WELLINGTON, This Day. A story of alleged perjury that sent a Hindu to gaol for twelve months on a serious charge was unfolded in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon, when a report was made by the Public Petitions Committee on the petition of Rachint Singh, of Fordcll. He alleged that there was a conspiracy of witnesses to commit perjury, and he asked that lie should receive compensation and other relief because of miscarriage of justice. The Committee referred the petition to the Government for most favourable consideration, with a view to a commission of inquiry being appointed to investigate the case. In presenting the report, the chairman of tlie Committee, the Rev. A. if. Nordmcyer (Government, Oamarul said that the committee had had placed before it a number of affidavits, including one from a well-known resident of the district, who was a Justice of the Peace, swearing that he overheard two of the principal witnesses against Singh at his trial claiming that a “frame-up" had occurred and that they had given false evidence. Petitioner, added Mr Nordmeyer, was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for alleged attempted rape, and he had served 12 months’ imprisonment when he was released by the Prisons Board. There was a previous request for a new trial, but this was refused by the Governor-in-Council, because the new evidence was not definite enough to warrant this step being taken. The Committee, however, in view of the affidavits submitted to it, had grave doubts, and it felt that in the interests of justice a fuither inquiry should be held, when the affidavits would convince the commission tliat at least it was possible that the Indian lad had suffered a very grave injustice. In the interests of justice, added Mr Nordmeyer, this man should be given the opportunity of proving his innocence.

CLOSE INVESTIGATION WARRANTED Mr G. H. O. Wilson (Government, 1 Rangitikei), who presented the petition, expressed his gratitude to the Committee for its recommendation, which he considered to be entirely justified by the evidence submitted. It 1 was a complicated case, and there were - five main witnesses whose evidence ; agreed. Subsequently the accused petitioned the Prisons Board for a re--1 trial, but it was not granted because l there was only one witness on his bej half who stated he had overheard some of the witnesses say that their evij dence was not correct. The police ques--5 tioned two witnesses, youths of 16 and 17, who maintained that they gave cor--1 rect evidence. Since then a number of people had become interested in the case, including a Mr Campion, a Justice of the Peace, and there were 13 affidavits swearing that the chief witness boasted that he had had the In- ■ dian imprisoned on false evidence. Mr Campion stated that the two boys said (hey were compelled ot give false evidence by their father, in one case, and by the busband of the woman in the other. In addition, said Mr vVilson, there was a direct interest in the matter in that the woman concerned and her husband owed the accused a certain sum. He certainly considered that the evidence presented to the Committee warranted close investigation. ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S ATTITUDE i The Attorney-General (the Hon. H. j G. R, Mason) suggested that as it was always desirable to secure finality in such cases, it was unfortunate that the evidence was not got together when the request was first made for retrial. No i one wished to deny justice, but people whose innocence or guilt was in quesi tion should get together the evidence. ! Could this new evidence, he asked, not | have been discovered when the applicaj tion was made for retrial? Were they ; to re-try cases a number of times as | evidence came in driblets? Of course, I he admitted that the House had not | heard the explanation. Mr J. Hargest (National. Awarua) , | member of the committee, said that the i petitioner claimed that, he was the vici tfrn of a conspiracy, one group of In- | dians setting out to catch him, and ; that they committed perjury. The new ; evidence, which could not have been ; brought forward before, was contained ; in 13 affidavits, and included one from a reputable European settler which ! stated that a group of the conspirat- ! ors told him, after Singh had served ! his imprisonment, that they had been i parties to a “frame-up.” The Minister of Public Works (the ! Hon. R. Semple): That is new evidence. Mr Hargest: Yes. It could not possibly have been found out before. This European is a gentleman of undoubted integrity. Another point is that the con- i ilrators have all left the country, posbly for fear of the consequences. Mr Nordmcyer, in reply, declared iat he very much regretted that the ttorney-General had taken up the attude expressed in his remarks. The ommittee did not treat the matter ghtly. They recognised the seriousness ' their responsibility, and gave it very ireful consideration. The result was at they were unanimous and emphaton the point that in the interests of stice ana because of new evidence, e case ought to be carried further. The report was adopted.