EVIDENCE TO ORDER

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10962, 26 July 1921, Page 2

EVIDENCE TO ORDER

PREVALENCE OF PERJURY AN AUCKLAND MAGISTRATE ON RETRIALS. (Special to “Tiises.”) July 24 Some frank comment on the prevalence of perjury was offered by Mr Poynton, S.M., at the Police Corrrt when giving his decision in the application for a rehearing of the case of John McGee, who was convicted last year of the theft of a' tin of benzine, and ordered fourteen days’ imprisonment. There was no power, said the magistrate, for any justice but the one bearing the case to grant a rehearing. The police in this case, however, waived any objection on the ground of the ap plication not having been made to the justice who tried it originally. The facts, shortly, were these: The applicant pleaded guilty -to a charge of theft on June 2nd, 1020, thirteen months ago. He was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment. His appliesj tion for a rehearing was based on the grounds that he was the owner of the property alleged to have been stolen, and that he pleaded guilty under a misapprehension. He had been a resident of Auckland since his imprisonment, and under no disability whatever. “There is,” said Mr Poynton, “a grave risk in reopening a case after the lapse of-so long a time. ‘lt is in the interests of the public that there should be an end of litigation’ is a i maxim that cannot be lightly disregarded. If convicted thieves and others could have their cases reopened after Suich a long period of time we would have all-sorts of manufactured evidence Perjury is very prevalent as it is, but this would be offering a premium to increase it. AR those with experience in courts know how ready most witnesses are to lie to get themselves and their friends out of trouble.” Mr Poynton quoted Mr Justice Williams in Rex V. Hughes.: “The essential point, however, is that if an application is made it ought to be made promptly. Everyone knows that nothing deteriorates more by lapse of time than evidence. Not only are witnesses liable to die or disappear, but human memory at best is fallible, and the longer time that elapses between the event and the time of giving evjdenoe the mono fallible it is likely to be.” Mr Justice Dennison had said: “I think' the power as to granting a new trial is one that should ue exercised with the greatest care, and above all things the application should be made promptly.” “In the present case,” said Mr Poynton, “the applicant pleaded guilty, and was under no disability whatever, and could have asked for a new trial twelve months ago. I think it would be a serious abuse of section 120 to grant a rehearing. The waiver of the police would not give a second justice jurisdiction. A rehearing can be granted only by the justice who heard the case.” '

“In fairness to the police,” added the magistrate, “it should be stated that the office files relating to applicant’s case proves several of the statements in his affidavit to be incorrect. The application is refused.”