POLICE COURT PROCEDURE.

NZ Truth, Issue 181, 5 December 1908, Page 4

POLICE COURT PROCEDURE.

Ia the Magistrate's Court proceedings m the case of Joseph charged with attempted murder, and which is reported elsewhere, incidents occurred which tend to support, and to a very, great extent, the suggestion previously put forward by this journal, of the necessity of appointing a puiolic defender, whose services should be at the disposal of all accused mer-SOiis " Ol * l o cannot • afford

to engage counsel on their own behalf. At the conclusion of the case ior tne prosecution the Magistrate, Mi W. G. Hidaell, asked Norman ii ac desired to say anything, and Norman was .proceeding to make a statement from the dock, when Mr Riddell said, "It, you want to say any tiling you must come into the box and be sworn." Tin. is not the first time by. many that Mr Riddell has adopted this course, which is not only irregular, but is 'entirely contrary to the Law, which distinctly lays it down that the Magistrate or Justices must make it clear to the accused that he may either make a statement from the dock, or he may go into the witness-box and give evidence, on oath. It is also provided that the Magistrate must see that the accused fully understands the position, but Mr Riddell did nothing of the sort. He treated the accused as if he were fully conversant with court procedure. When the Act was amended to admit of accused/persons giving evidence on their. own behalf, it was intended to 'oe of benefit to prisoners and not to be detrimental. Where an accu.sed lerson is defended by counsel, his advocate is the judge as to whether ii is advisable for accused to go into the box, but m the case of an undefended accused person, who is ignorant of the forms of the court,., the case is very different, and it is the duty of the Magistrate to clearly point out the result of giving evidence on oath. An accused person who tenders himself as a witness, on his own behalf, has to stand the brunt of severe CEoss-examination by the prosecuting counsel or police, arid if an accused person knew 1 this before, entering the ' witness-box he would undoubtedly hesitate before electing to do so, hence it becomes a most important matter that the Magistrate should see that undefended accused persons fully understand their position. It is no detriment, to an accused person not to go into the witness-box, and the Act forbids any comment being made thereon if an accused person does not tender himself as a witness. In the latter case, the accused can make a statement from the dock without the risk of cross-examina-tion, and though the statement is not evidence, it is frequently an important factor, m determining the result of a case, hence , "Truth" suggests that, all similar future cases, Magistrate Riddell should see that undefended accused persons fully realise their position m this respetft.. Another matter which "Truth" desires to bring under, the notice of the Justice Department is the slipshod manner m which the- depositions were taken m the,, case under notice. When a prisoner . comes before^ the Supreme Court for trial, or a witness is eiying evidence m the box, the Grown Prosecutor frequently remarks, "but you did riot . say that m your evidence m the lower Court," or '"'you said so and so" m tire lower" court. .Witnesses become confused and sometimes protest tlvat they did make, or did not make, the .statement m dispute m the lower court. The. depositions are then produced, and they tend to convince, the jury (hat ,the witness has altrrtd his.'evidence.' But to return to .the Norman case. When Norman was under cross examination by Chief fretective McG rath, he stated that a wardrx gave him dsihV —whisky— hut this important piece of evidence was not recorded on the depositions read over to Norman, and he signed them, but a man who is not'conversant with court proceedings cannot be •xpected to note every omission that, is made. The probability is' *hat when Norman makes this statement a°ain m 'he Supreme Court. -at his trial, he wil' be asked by the Crown Prosecutor why he <tid not mention it m the lower court, and should he state that he did, he wiU be confronted with the depositions, on ■•■h ; rh this statement^ is * not rf corded Had a public defender been 'available for Gorman, this unexplamabJe 1 would, have been instantly, rerwdnedy am! this journnl ur^es that, m the in*erVstf-i of Justice, the. Government should ap--noint: Public Defenders and give them the same-right of access to official infoffnV tion as the police and Crown Prosecutors have, as if is far more advisable (hit ninp.tv-i?i>e euiltv persons should escape -punishment* rather than oneinnoo:nt person should suffer imprisonment.