Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 558, 14 October 1882, Page 17

It is with considerable reluctance that we have concluded to make any criticism on the conspiracy case which has, for the past few days, occupied the Supreme Court. The usual sourse observed by journalism is to abstain from all comments until a case is concluded, and the sentence of the Court has been pronounced; and, in pursuance of this rule, we waited to hear the Judge's decision announced to-day, as it was expected it would be. As the report of the Court's proceedings will show, that decision has been still further reserved ; but, as the case is now, so far as the public can know, indefinitely postponed, it is inexpedient any longer to defer such criticism as the progress of the trial has suggested; though the obligation to refrain from any prejudging of the sentence, or espousing any special view of the pleadings in the case, must still be observed. It is quite unnecessary to enter into the painful and sickening details, all indicative of abnormal morality, which the proceedings in the trial disclosed ; nor, indeed, do these, so far as the evidence shows, appear to have any very direct bearing on what after all is the real question involved, viz.: Whether, in the case of the prisoner Longhurst, there had not been a prior miscarriage of justice? When the Adams were a few months ago charged with conspiring to accuse and secure the conviction of G-eorge Longhurst on account of a serious crime, the Resident Magistrate stated that it was Dr. Collins' evidence which mainly weighed with him in co aamitting them to take their trial. In commenting on this fact at the time, the question was urged by us, Why was the evidence of Dr. Collins • not adduced on the occasion of Longhurst's trial ? And the averment was also then made that, had that evidence been then availed of, as it ought to have been, no jury would have brought in a verdict of guilty." That is still our opinion, and it is difficult to see how any person who has watched the progress of the present case and perused the evidence with ordinary care, could arrive at any other conclusion. Nay, we go farther, and say that, if that evidence had been hefore the Magistrate who heard the charge against Longhurst in the lower Court, it may be held as certain that the case would never have come into the Supreme Court at all. The same may be said of the effect which the evidence given by the witness Humphrey in the trial of the Adams would have had on Longhubst's trial, but which, in some unaccountable way, does not appear to have then been forthcoming. That, however, we may, for the present, dismiss from our view, and confine our attention solely tothe evidence of Dr. Collins. And with regard to this evidence, we-are again constrained to ask, Why was it noted, duced during Longhubst's arraignment ? It appears that neither by the officer who had charge of the prosecution, nor by the counsel for the Crown was it considered part of hi a duty to summon a witness, whose statements would have tended to exculpate the accused. Chief Detective Browne says that he considered he had done all that was required of him, and yet that all included the exclusion of evidence which would have prevented a conviction ! We take leave to say that Chief Detective Browne did not,' in these circumstances, do all that was required of him, and that he wilfully omitted to do the very thing which he holds office for, and for the doing of which he is paid by the State, viz., to see that every item of information which will tend to secure, not a conviction, but justice, is put before the Court. Such information he was guilty of withholding. It is no excuse to say that it was the part of the prisoner's counsel to have produced that evidence, and that they might easily have known of it, because counsel have not the same facilities _ as the police authorities of becoming aware of all the facts connected with criminal cases, and in this case these gentlemen have declared, through the public Press, that they were not, at the time, aware that evidence such as Dr. Collins could have then given, was available for the purposes of defence. But, their knowledge or ignorauce on this point altogether apart, it was the duty both of the prosecutor and the counsel for the Crown to take the requisite measures to have all the evidence known to them to be available produced in Court before ths oasf

went to the jury; and, if they failed to do this, they not only placed the Bench and the jury in false positions, but also contributed, whatever the verdict might be, to the infliction of an irremediable wrong upon the person at the bar. . , . ,t_ Now here, precisely, is the origo mali—M lawyers of old were wont to say—the spring of all the trouble and Bcandal connected with the miserable case which has been for some time back occupying public attention; and it is forcibly suggestive of the first reform demanded in the conduct of criminal cases; It cannot too soon or too much be inculcated on the instruments of the law that, in the management of prosecutions for alleged offences, their aim ought not to be simply to prove the guilt of the accused,'but rather, if possible, their innocence. To take any other, and specially an opposite view of their functions, is to represent the la was thirsting for blood, in place of shielding life and character; and the Throne, which is the fountain of mercy, as being, instead, the source of oppression. In the observations suggested by this painful case, which has grown out of a misconception of the aim of the law, we have no desire to cast personal reflections on our legal functionaries. These, in conducting criminal prosecutions, have been drilled under the impression that, in order to justify their position they must, by all means, or rather by any means, secure a conviction, and the consequence is that what makes for this is sought out, while what makes against it is suppressed. It is the system that is at fault rather than the officials, who work it, and the system ought, therefore, without delay to be changed. One very important step towards this necessary reform would be the appointment of a Public Prosecutor, such as has long been in Scotland, and is now in England, whose duty it should be to determine when a case should go before the Supreme Court, and see that all ..evidence which might tell either against, or fon the prisoner, should be put before the jury. By this official, a position would be occupied very different to that held by the present Prosecutor for the Grown. In the conduct of a case the latter is wholly dependent for evidence on the Eolice authoritiesj whose aim, as we aye seen, is always merely to secure a conviction, whereas the former being directly responsible to the Crown, and the representative of justice in the true sense of the term, would not only rely on his own iudgment as : to the evidence to be adduced, but also act as a check upon the partial and one-sided proof which the police authorities are too prone,to bring forward. Another amendment in our criminal procedure which the present case, viewed in its totality, points to as imperatively called for, is the giving the right of appeal in cases where the.prisoner or his counsel felt that substantial justice had not been secured by the verdict. The best of juries are prone to err, and even in cases where their verdict may be strictly equitable evidence may afterwards arise which was not available at the trial, and which would have materially altered the decision arrived at. This arrangement would give an opportunity of reviewing the whole case, and, beside haying the effect of relieving the presiding Judge of the pain caused by the impression that, even to a limited extent, there has been a miscarriage of justice, would be attended with the unspeakable advantage of not unfrequently preventing the infliction of a cruel wrong upon one who was either consciously innocent or legally entitled to acquittal.