INTERESTING CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7870, 4 August 1911, Page 1

INTERESTING CASE

ACCOMPLICE’S EVIDENCE

WAS IT PROPERLY REJECTED?

KING v. REYNOLDS AND PETERSON A phase of the case, Rex v. Edward • Reynolds and Annie Peterson, was argued before the Court of Appeal yesterday. Tho bench was occupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Sir Joshua Williams and Justices Dcnniston, Edwards, Chapman and Sim. Mr T. Neavo appeared for the Crown; Mr A. L. Hcrdman appeared for Peterson, and Mr A. Gray for Reynolds. At tho last criminal sessions of the Supreme Court Edward Reynolds and Annie Peterson wore charged that, on March 14th. 1911, they unlawfully, used ;

a certain instrument on a young girl with intent to procure abortion. It was alleged that Reynolds counselled and procured Peterson to commit the oSence,

thereby becoming a party’ to it. After arraignment counsel for the prisoners applied to his Honor the . Chief Justice, who presided, to direct separate trials for tho prisoners on the ground that the prisoners would bo prejudiced .in their defences if they were tried together. The application was opposed by counsel for the Crown, and his Honor refused it, whereupon counsel for the accused asked

that the point be reserved* for the Court of Appeal. Tho only direct evidence was that of the unfortunate girl. His Honor, in the course of his summing up to the jury, said;—‘'This poor girl, with poor parents, has got into trouble and is anxious to get rid of her

trouble. Our law says it is a crime to do so, and if" she agrees to this she is a participator,* an accomplice and a worker in the crime herself. An ancient law laid down in England is that in such a case as this the courts insist upon some corroboration of the testimony of the person who was a participant in the crime. In my opinion, the corroboration in this case is too slight. It is so slight that I could not say to you that it would be safe enough for, you to convict/* The jury 'returned the verdict, "Kot guilty, by direction of r the judge,’* On tho application of counsel for the Crown his Honor stated a case for the Court of Appeal, and tho questions he asked the higher court to determine were

(1) "Was I right in refusing the application for severance? (2) "Was I right in holding that there was no sufficient corroboration, of the girl’s story disclosed by tho evidence given for the Crown to go to the jury? (3) "Was I right in-directing the jury as set out herein?'* * •

Counsel addressed the court mainly on Question 3. Mr Neave contended that a jury might act upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice provided they wero given a proper warning by the judge; and further, that in this particular case there was independent evidence sufficient to corroborate the story told by the girl and to warrant the court m leaving the case to the jury. These arguments were combatted by counsel for the defence. The argument for both sides was based almost entirely on previous rulings on the law of evidence on this particular point. 1 Briefly, counsel for the defence argued that the judge must infallibly direct the jury to reject the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. Mr Neave, on the other hand, submitted that the judge might so direct the jury* but that ho must also direct them that they had a legal right to accept the evidence and base their verdict upon it. * Their Honors intimated, in the course of Mr Gray's argument, that they, did not wish to hear him on the question of corroboration, for even if' Mr Gray showed there was no corroboration it could not affect the court's judgment,' the opinion of the court being that if the Crown's contention that ytho ought not to have been withdrawn from the Crown's contention that the case must go to another jury. Argument on the question of severance was then heard, and the court reserved judgment. . ’ .