NOT ACCEPTED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26215, 27 July 1946, Page 8

NOT ACCEPTED

PALMPRINT EVIDENCE REJECTED BY CHIEF JUSTICE (P.A.) WELLINGTON, July 26. The value of palmprints in evidence before the Supreme Court was discounted to-day by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers. "We know the value of fingerprints," said his Honor. "We have accepted this evidence for years, but I have no hesitation in telling you that the same position has not been established in regard to palmprints. There is authoritative literature on the question of fingerprints, but if there is authoritative literature on palmprints we have not seen it to-day.” The court was hearing a charge against Roy Vincent, aged 30, a barman and baker, who was acquitted of breaking and entering the Courtney place branch of the Bank of New South Wales. His Honor said that, in any case, if the Crown was relying on a palmprlnt, it should have called a senior police officer to give evidence. It was, so far as he knew, the first case of the kind in New Zealand. Even if the palmprint were accepted as the accused’s, what was more possible than that, after the accused nad read the paper, somebody else had picked it up ana taken it to tne bank? His Honor said it was his duty to speak about another aspect of the case, although it did not affect the question of the accused’s guilt. Detective W. C. Harper, who had executed the warrant to accused’s house had not executed it immediately on going to the house, but had asked the accused a number of questions bearing on the case before doing so.

" I acquit him of intending to do anything wrong, but! it has the appearance of getting the accused to incriminate himself,” said his Honor. When the detective wds asked if he had warned the accused, he replied that the accused had remarked at the beginning of the conversation that he knew all about warnings. The detective said he had not put that fact in his report. It was a detective’s duty to put such a thing in his report, said his Honor. Reference was made by his Honor to the fact that he had asked the detective during the trial to produce the search warrant, but that the,detective had been unable to find the warrant, though he was sure it had been read to the accused. His Honor said he had wanted the warrant to find out what the officer had been authorised to do. The police force had very excellent and honourable officers, including those who had given evidence in that case. He did not believe Detective Harper thought that what he was doing was a departure from propriety, but unless judges drew attention to errors that came to their notice, the descent would be rapid. When he jury, after 55 minutes retirement, announced the accused not guilty, his Honor said it was obviously the right verdict.