THE J. J. MEIKLE COMMISSION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2715, 28 March 1906, Page 24

THE J. J. MEIKLE COMMISSION.

THE ORDER OF REFERENCE. OBJECTIONS BY THE MEIKLE j COMMITTEE. | WELLINGTON, March 26. I

Justices Edwards and Cooper have been appointed Ocmniisioners to inquire into the case of J. J. Meikle. The Commission sets forth: — (1) Whether the conviction of the said William Lambert for perjury established the innocence of the said John James Meikle; (2) whether the conviction of the said William Lambert raised a reasonable presumption that the .said John James Meilcle was innocent, or that he was wrongfully coniieted; (3) whether there is any evidence to show that the said John James Meikle has since his eonMctiori made any admissions or statements inconsistent with his innocence ; (A) as to tho cucumstanees which led to the prosecution of the said William Lambert for perjury, and whether there was any undue delay on tho part of the said John James Meikle m taking proceedings for perjury against the said William Lambeit; (5) as 131 3 the ciicum.stances under which the said Jolui James Meikle accepted thf< sum. of £500 in full settlement of his c!..inu3. and whether, apart from legal considerations-, the settlement then made should Lp tieated as final ; (6) as to the financial position of the said John James Meikle immediately pi feeding- his a.rrc-s>t for the &a.icl offence of sheep stealing-, arid during 1 his imprisonment, and at the date of his release from piiioa, and sauce, and whether, having

regard to all the circumstances, the said John Jamps Meikle is fairly entitled to further pecuniary compensation in respect of his conviction and imprisonment, or in respect of the loss and suffering alleged to have been entailed upon his family thereby, and, if so, to what amount; (7) as to the amount of legal and other costs incurred and paid by the said John James Meikle— (a) in respect of his defence at his trial upon the charge of sheep-stealing, (b) in respect of the prosecution of the said William Lambert for perjury, and (c) as to the circumstances under which the said John James Meikle accepted the sum of £294 16s Id in full settlement of his plaim for legal and other costs as aforesaid, and whether, apart from legal considerations, tho settlement then made should be treated as final; (8) whether, having regard to English precedent and the circumstances of the case, the claim of the said John James Meikle that his name be removed from the prison records can be given effect to, and, if not, what alternative is practicable in the way of placing on record his innocence, if in your opinion his innocence has been established, or may be presumed as aforesaid; (9) whether in your opinion legislation is necessary to give effect to your recommendations, or to any of them. The Meikle Committee feels aggrieved over the form in which the order of reference kas been drawn up. TJncJer date of 24th March, 1906. the following letter was forwarded to the Minister of Justice by Mr James Jameson, secretary of the "committee :■—" S:r,— l have the 'honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th inst. covering a copy of tho Commission issued for -an inquiry into the case of Mr J. J. Meikle. While gratefully acknowledging the courtesy of the Minister in supplying the information contained in your letter, my committee directs me to express its deep regret that he should have issued the Commission, either in entire ignorance of the correspondence which has passed between the Premier and my committee on the subject, or else in deliberate disregard of every suggestion made by my committee in that correspondence. The result is the more surprising inasmuch as the Premier proclaimed from the public platform that he was in consultation with my committee on tho subject and had received replies of a very satisfactory charaoter. He had been good enough to submit to us a draft of the proposed order of reference and to invite suggestions, - and; after considering- the matter with great care and with the assistance of legal advice, we proposed various amendments, but we now find that not a single one of our suggestions has received the slightest attention and that a number of new points have been inserted in the commission which were never submitted to us. You will not be surprised ' to hear that my committee does not regard a, consultation of this kind as of a Very satisfactory character. It is not, however, against the discourtesy to ourselves, but against the threatened injustice to Mr Meikle, that we desire to protest. The sole aim of our proposed amendment was to secure an absolutely unre- | etrictcd inquiry into all the merits arid demerits of Mr Meikle's claims, and to that end to enable the Commission ,to examine all the evidence adduced at the two trials and to weigh every circumstance that would have any bearing on the innocence or guilt of the accused. Mr Meikle himself courts such an inquiry, and we had supposed that the Government had the same desire, but your letter has undeceived us. We are advised, for instance, that the first of the questions to be submitted — viz., "Whether the eonvielion of the said William Lambert for perjury established tho innocence of *he said John James Meikle,' i& from a legal standpoint a sheer absurdity, and that it must be decided in the negative by any legal tribunal on technical grounds which will leave the merits of either conviction absolutely untouched. But no such limitation would have been possible under this and the second question as amended by us. It is not our intentiou, however, to examine in detail tho effect of our various suggestions, but for the Minister's information we enclose a. copy of them, and for the information of the public we are handing them to the press. We may, however, point out that while you are absolutely precluding Mr Meikle from adducing affirmative evidence of his innocence, you have opened the way in the third question for new evidence against him of a kind that has never been hinted in all the dreary years of his agitation, and that was not included in the drafb submitted to us by the Premier. It is. perhaps, hardly necessary for us to add that if the entire ignoring of all our suggestions is the result of an oversight the grave injustice with which Mr Meikle is trreatened by the narrowing of the issues can easily be averted bf a few simple amendments of the issues submitted to tho Commission."

The Commissioners meet on Wednesday to arrange preliminaries, and resume oa April 12.