N. Z. TRUTH The National Paper THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 1929. Elsie Walker's Death Can Be Enquired Into Again

NZ Truth, Issue 1239, 29 August 1929, Page 6

N. Z. TRUTH The National Paper THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 1929. Elsie Walker's Death Can Be Enquired Into Again

ELSIE WALKER'S mysterious, death has attained tho distinction of a cause celeb re due not so much to the tragic circumstances of the tragedy as to thc involved legal position that has arisen as a result of the recent startling developments which indicate that important new evidence is now available. The story of the tragic death of. Elsie "Walker m October last has been fully set forth m the columns of "Truth," and with all its baffling net of contradictions, and false and valueless clues, the mystery, with tlie passage of time, becomes more and more involved. The inquest failed to elicit one material fact which could lead to a solution of the mystery of Elsie Walker's death. A few weeks ago, thc public was startled with new developments, first disclosed by "Truth," occasioned by a secret meeting m Wanganui between Mrs. Frank Bayly and Mrs. Thomasen. As a. result of the correspondence subsequently released for publication, came the announcement that Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., the Coroner, had recommended either that the inquest be reopened or that a prosecution be instituted for perjury. A highly iiiteresting, if not unique, legal situation arises. j The Coroner has no power to reopen an inquest; only by means of an involved legal process, with a Supreme Court judge as the deciding factor, can a fresh inquest be arranged. There is no statutory provision for. the reopening of an inquest, and any redress as between interested parties m a Coroner's inquiry can only be had m Common Law. • Although the Coroners' Acfris vague and indefinite regarding the full scope of thc powers, vested m Coroners, and while it embodies no statutory- provision for. the reopening of a.v.inquest, that does; not necessarily mean that there can. be no further inquiry into Elsie Walker's death. In point of fact any of : thc interested parties can exercise their rights at Common Law and on affidavit- as to any new evidence available, go before a- Supreme Court judge who would decide on the merits of the facts' placed beJ'Qrc him. Common Law is bayed on common sense, and thc judge Avould have to decide whether it was logical and .reason able to order a new inquest. In reaching 'that decision he would 'be guided by the evidence tendered m support of the application. . It seems eminently logical to say that the 'new evidence now available warrants a Supreme Court order for afresh inquiry. While it is satisfactory' to -know that there is provision for a new inquiry, the legal process involved is at best a protracted one. To facilitate the ends of justice, what is required is a statutory definition m the Coroner's Act clarifying the procedure to be followed m such cases as this, similar to that contained m the English Coroner's Act, ISS7. It is not considered that the Act itself should* be radically amended. To place arbitrary powers m the hands of coroners might sometimes react detrimentally to the interest of the individual and the administration of justice. The legal processes are not defined clearly enough to meet such a contingency as that which has arisen m the Elsie AValker case which demonstrates that there is a pressing need for statutory provision for the reopening of inquests m preference to the existing procedure under common law.