CONSTABLE'S ACQUITTAL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21794, 8 May 1934, Page 12

CONSTABLE'S ACQUITTAL

WEAKNESS OF EVIDENCE QUESTION OF COSTS In the Supreme Court at Darwin, Northern Australia, ti few days aco. Judge Wells dealt with the question of costs incurred by Constable Gordon Stott in successfully defending a chargo of having assaulted a lubra. Counsel for Stott urged that costs wero for tlio discretion of the Court. Counsel for the Crown said there was no Statute dealing with the case, so tlio Crown could neither give nor receive costs. He suggested that the Judgo coukl mako a recommendation to tlio Crown.

The Judge said that as the position appeared doubtful to him, ho did not propose to make any order for payment of costs for the reason that in so doing lie might involve Stott in an appeal to the High Court, which might prove costly to him. The Crown might feel impelled to appeal against such an order for tho reason that, it might be laying down a dangerous precedent, and it might do this without any reference to tho particular merits of the case.

His Honor stat9cl most emphatically his opinion that tho ends of justice would not bo served unless the Crown did everything possible to recompense Stott for what ho had pone through. The least, tho Crown could do was to pay Stott's costs in the second trial. The Crown was possibly entitled to have the matter tested on the f'rst occasion, but he was strongly of opinion that there was no justification for bringing Stott to trial a secoiyj time on the evidence which tho Crown had available. The Judge added that he considered that if proper steps had been taken to test the evidence of some of the witnesses, tho falsity of their story must have become apparent. For these reasons he proposed to leave it to the Crown to deal with tho matter as justice required.