REOPENING INQUESTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20407, 8 November 1929, Page 16

REOPENING INQUESTS.

POWER IN CERTAIN CASES.

LEGISLATION NEXT SESSION.

REPORT ON THE PETITIONS.

[by TEMSU R.M'lf. —■SITKCIAT, HEI'OIITEK.] WELLINGTON', Thuraduy.

Legislation will be promt'tod next session enabling inquests in certain cases (o lie reopened, according to a slv'itemcnt made in the House of Representatives today by (lie Minister of JusLico, tho ; lion. T. M. Wilford.

Tho Minister said an amendment tostho Coroners Act had been drafted by tbo Crown Law Office, but it. was not satisfactory, nor was the bill introduced by Mi 1 . C. E Macinillan (Reform —Tauranga). Eurther, tho English Act was not satisfactory, and was not applicable to New Zealand, which had a specially difficult position to consider.

There were 60 coroners in the Dominion who were not magistrates, and three of them were over 30 years of ago. Therefore, in dealing with the question of reopening inquests, one could not enunciate a general principle, such as was contained in the English Act. In the Old Country coroners could not be appointed unless they were medical men or barristers. There was no intention to alter (ho New Zealand law this session, but in introducing a bill on the. subject next session the Government, would carefully consider the measure promoted by Mr. Macmillan, the draft suggested by tho Crown Law Office, and tiie English Act, with a view to- subrnil-fing to the House a short, simple measure. The object would bo to allow the Minister of Justice, when lus considered it' tit and proper, when evidence, especially fresh testimony, was. submitted to him, to proceed at once without application to tho Supreme Court or to the Attorney-General, to order that in certain cases coroners' inquests might be reopened. The Minister said a great deal had been said about the Smallfield case as an instance of an inquest being reopened. That was true, but the inquest had been reopened by the coroner with the consent of tho.lawyers concerned, without any legal right or title. However, when the vouchers for expenses wero submitted in connection with tho second inquest they , wore not allowed, on the ground that the proceedings were not legal. The Public Petitions Committee at a later stage presented tho report on the largely-signed petitions praying ihat legislation should bo enacted to authorise tho reopening of inquest proceedings, with particular reference to tho Elsie Walker case. Tiie signatures to tho petitions totalled 15,868. The Committee raferrcd the petitions to the Government for favourable consideration, and recommended that tho Government should being down amending legislation as soon 'as possible.

PROFESSOR ALGIE'S VIEW.

PROVISIONS OF ENGLISH LAW.

Professor R. M. Algio writes:—

The views expressed by Mr. John A. Beale are no doubt held by a considerable section of the community and are naturally entitled to receive serious attention. I feci, however, that I should re-state shortly the main points which appeal to me in connection with the subject under discussion. Mr. Beale appears to have some admiration for the Scottish verdict of "not proven." I venture to hope that very few New Zealanders will share this view. According to our law, a man is innocent until he has been proved guilty. I cannot imagine a more distressing verdict than one which practically says that a man is guilty but tlwt there is not enough evidence to provo it. Again, Mr. Beale suggests that I have based my opinion partly upon the "effete dictum of an ancient judge." In point of fact the judgment which I quoted was delivered somewhere before 1670; but it was quoted with approval by Chief Justice Cockburn in 1860, and again by the same Judge in , 1876. Finally, the same view is set out as being still the law in one of the recognised text books published only a little over a year ago. One may, therefore, fairly claim that the conclusion arrived at was based upon authorities that are modern and entitled to respect. As to the particular case of Elsie Walker, I feel that no fresh facts have yet been disclosed which warrant a review of the whole matter, or which offer any definito promise of beneficial results. Theories and suppositions arc not enough; public excitement and curiosity 1 should not bo stirred up by a further public investigation unless there is good reason to believe that some practical and substantial advantage will be gained. The administration of justice is not being stifled by a failure or refusal to reopen this inquest. Willing witnesses can still give the police the benefit of any information they possess; very little benefit will be obtained from the cross-examina-tion of unwilling ones. Recent experience in Auckland has shown that reluc- | taut witnesses can have yeijy defective memories as regards important matters and they can show a marked disinclination to speak as to topics which, they claim, may incriminate themselves. It does seem to nic that, on the facts now before us, there is too small a chanco of any definite advantage being obtained jto justify a reopening of the whole matter.

Finally, thero scorns to bo a fairly genera! idea that tho law in New Zealand has lagged far behind that now prevailing in England, and that in England an inquest like the present one could be readily reopened. It is (rue that our law has not kept pace with that of the Mother Country, and this is certainly to bo deplored. But, as f have already contended, coroners in England have no free power of holding a second inquest while the judgment in Iho first continues to stand. The High Court can, however, on special and narrowly-defined grounds, and after a judicial inquiry, cancel the previous inquest and order the coroner to hold a second one. This power is sparingly employed. One of the grounds on which this jurisdiction can be exercised is where the Court is "satisfied" that such a course is "necessary or desirable'* because of the discovery of new facts. Such a law might well havo been adopted in New Zealand and no one could justly object to it. But my contention has been, and still is, that so far we have not had disclosed to us evidence of such value that, had it been offered in England, a second inquest would have been ordered. Orio feels quite certain that a coroner's verdict in England would not, be disturbed by the High Court on production of the meagre details which havo so far been disclosed.