A FAIR DEAL.

NZ Truth, Issue 240, 12 February 1910, Page 4

A FAIR DEAL.

An important principle of court proceedure was touched upon m Christchurch £'other day, when. Magistrate Bishop refused to have a man accused of theft sworn m the prisoner's box, but permitted him to enter the witness-box like any respectable person, or like lots of unconvicted and apparently respectable rogues, who osculate on the Testament from time to time. The fact that the man, William Fraser, was subsequently acquitted merely emphasises the injustice of swearing an accused person m the dock and of refusing him the moral support of the wit-ness-box. The Magistrate did not give his reasons lor allowing accused to enter the witness-box. He stated that it had been his practice for 27 years, and would continue to be hut practice. This broadminded and fait rule ol giving a prisoner e«ery chance to regain his liberty is m speaking contrast to that which obtains m the Supreme Court, Christchurch, where Judge Denniston was wont to refuse an accused person the privilege of entering the witness-box, and, if he desired to give evidence, he had to do so from the dock,, handicapped by the indefinable prejudice excited by his presence there, no matter how innocent he might be. The injustice of this course is all the more pronounced m a Supreme Court, for whereas the judicially-trained mind of a magistrate would not permit any such, consideration to influence him, the stigma of foe prisoner's dock and its appalling associations must influence the opinions of an impressionable jury, even if it does >so unconsciously. Some judges m New Zealand accept the basic principle, that every man is innocent until he is found guilty, by permitting accused persons to be sworn m the witness-box, and m the interests of common humanity and fair play our advanced Lejsislature should make compulsory that which is now subject, to the personal opinion of some elderly gentleman who is dignified with the tr6le of 's'Honor.