THE MEIKLE CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13874, 11 April 1907, Page 6

THE MEIKLE CASE.

Tire report of the Commission of Judges upon the claim of J. J. Meikle for redress in connection with his conviction oii s a charge of sheep-stealing in 18S7 wilk'be generally accepted as reasonable and' sound. The material portion of the findings upon the issues of fact that were remitted to ; the Commission is to bo found in the declaration that the Commissioners are of opinion that, if the proceedings before them had been an actual retrial of Meiklo, it would have been proper to acquit him on the evidence, so far was: this from being conclusive of his guilt. This being the judgment they formed, upon evidence that was in many respects unsatisfactory—and none of it more so than that of Meikle himself,— the Commissioners recommend that Meikle should, for the purpose of the settlement of his claim, bo treated as having been acquitted upon a retrial of tho charge in respect of which he was convicted in 1887 and, after conviction, served a term of imprisonment. This pronouncement and recommendation by tho Commissioners plainly furnish the justification for the'agitation, to which Meikle has devoted several years of his life, for the removal of tho stain placed upon his character by his conviction, upon evidence that, so far as can now be judged, was certainly insufficient to sustain the charge. He is entitled, therefore, to be congratulated upon the successful issue of the efforts he has made to establish the inadequacy of the caso upon which he was convicted. Wo wish we could as honestly say that the result of the Commis-

sioners, - iuqnh'i&fi has been to leave Meikle's character unblemished. But it is impossible to Jiold 'chat the animadversions contained in tho report upon Moiklo's "reckless disregard of his oath" while lie was under examination aro not entirely just, ami it would be idlo to contend that the damaging admissions of immoral conduct, extending over a period of some years,-which were eventually dragged out of him have not created an exceedingly unfavourable impression regarding him. Yet, however much Moikle may have forfeited public sympathy by*" tho disclosures ■ for which the inquiry before tho Commissioners was responsible, tho fact remains that in the opinion of the judges who formed the Commission he should now be treated as having bee« acquitted upou a retrial of the chnrgo successfully brought airainst him in 1887. What measuro of redress, then, should be offered to him? There can bo no question that the sum of £500 which was paid to him in 3897 by way of compensation was accepted in full satisfaction of any claims he had upon" the colony in respect of his conviction and of tho costs incurred by him in prosecuting tho witness whoso false testimony substantially contributed to his conviction. Since, then, moreover, sums amounting in tho aggregate t0£295 £295 have been received by him to cover expenses that wore incurred, by him in law expenses. And Parliament, to which alone, as tho. bestower of tho State's bounty, Meikle's appeal for additional monetary compensation can be addressed, may quite probably conclude that, in all the circumstances,, it is unnecessary to make, any further payment to him. Tho ejaim that Meikle's name should bs •removed from the prison records is not, for various reasons, •favourauly viewed by the Commissioners, 'The mere absence of a precedent should hot in itself he sufficient ground for the refusal of the application that the records should be amended by the expungemojit of Meikle'a name, for the case might conceivably have been suoh a ono as to justify the creation of a precedent. But, irrespective of the other considerations which influenced tho Commissioners in the formation of the judgment they have arrived at on this point, it may he asked of what practical value would it be to Meikle to have the record of his conviction-blotted out from the prison registers, when the fact that he was convicted has-been trie subject of comment in every newspaper in the colony, in the parliamentary debates, and in other chronicle.? that cannot be'altered? Tho true and simple remedy. would seem to , he the quashing of the conviction at the instance of ..the Crown as a sequel to the enactment of appropriate legislation'which, as the Commissioners suggest, should be general in its terms and not limited in its application to tho Meiklo case.