McILVENEY MUST EXPLAIN!

NZ Truth, Issue 1144, 3 November 1927, Page 5

McILVENEY MUST EXPLAIN!

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Specia WALTER SCOTT BAGBY, a "* well-known Auckland jockey, as reported on page 7, was found not guilty of the charge of manslaughter m connection with the death of an elderly woman named Sarah Elizabeth Short, whom he knocked down with his car, but he was found guilty on the second charge of negligent driving. Bagby was fined £100 and his license to drive a car was cancelled for two years. He was given one month m which to pay the fine. Did the Crown place all the available evidence before the jury? Was every shred of evidence bearing on this tragic affair placed m the hand.s of Crown Prosecutor Hubble? To ask such questions as these after twelve, good men and a judge of the Supreme Court have, m effect, said: "Justice has been done," is an exceedingly grave step to take.

When, however, circumstances arise m the

wake of a trial, be it civil or criminal — more p a rti c v larly when bearing on the loss of human life — .circumstanc e s which threaten to imperil the faith of the public m the sublime purity and rigid impartiality of British justice as administered m our courts, then there is but one course .open. "N.Z. Truth" owes a duty to the public; a duty which carries with it the obligation to watch over

and to protect the interest? of the people — to fight for them! Whether these questions be answered m the affirmative or m the negative is now a matter of vital public import. The information volunteered to "Truth," which is being whispered and discussed at every street corner, m public places and m the homes of Auckland citizens — and which will undoubtedly spread on the swift tongue of gossip throughout the whole of New Zealand — makes an immediate public announcement by Commissioner Mcllveney absolutely imperative. Wild, rumors, that are becoming more distorted every day, invest the matter with the vital importance of a principle that deeply affects the public welfare. The salient facts of the information that has reached "Truth" are, briefly, as follows: An Auckland business man, who, for reasons best knov/n to himself, does not at present wish his name dis-

-1 Auckland Representative.)

[ closed, states that not only was he an eye-witness of the tragedy, but he actually saw the unfortunate woman struck by the car. It was owing to his minute description of the car that the driver was subsequently interrogated and. finally arrested. He telephoned the police, he says, asking them to look at Bagby's car. This eye-witness also states that he saw the collision from the tram through the glass window, that it was not raining at the time and that the car was travelling at thirty-five miles an hour. He is himself a car-owner and driver of some years' experience. He also says that he saw the woman standing close to the tram rails as the tram slowed down, and that the car struck her as the tram came to a stop. Now, this man alleges that he gave a statement to • a policeman at police headquarters on the night of the tragedy and. that he

later gave a statement t o Senior - Detective Hammond, both of which statements contained a minute description of the car driven by Bagby, as well as numerous other important details. He helped the police that night to locate the car. He was not called to give evidence either m the lower court or m the Supreme Court! He was perfectly willing to do so.

It is not

the duty

"Truth" to comment on the value or otherwise of this evidence or its possible effect had it been given at the trial. On the other hand, if what this man says is true, then there is a moral obligation not only on "Truth," but on every newspaper, every public body and. every man and woman m the Dominion to demand the reason why this eyewitness was not called by the Crown at the Bagby trial. It is not now a question closely relating to the trial. Bagby has been tried, found guilty of one charge and sentenced, and that is an end of the matter so far as the penal law is concerned. If the . facts are true — and there is no reason so far as "Truth" is concerned to doubt them — then the question has now become one which strikes at the very roots of our national welfare. If the police have blund.ered, then the public must be told the reason why.