SHOULD PRISONERS GIVE EVIDENCE ?

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4736, 9 December 1886, Page 2

SHOULD PRISONERS GIVE EVIDENCE ?

Thk question of the advisability of the evidence of accused persons in criminal cases is a subject which ia engaging tho attention of the colonial Press at the presenfc moment, as being a subject un which legislature must soon follow. Although for years past the matter has been commented on as an injustice, it has not l>eun taken up in a manner whereby general attention has been forced to the subject-. As the law at present stands, a person accused of a crime other than assault or small criminal crimes have their mouths closed while evidence is being heuped against them. Of course they have the, right of crois-ex'nmiiiation, and in the case of au indictable offence, of the right of making a statement ; but how much fairer would it be to an accused if he were permitted to make his statement on oath, not alone in the inferior but in tho superior Courts. The last number of the Nineteenth Century contains an article on the subject which is especially instructive as it is written by Mr Justice Stephen, who speaks from experience. "My experience," he says, "has confirmed and strengthened the opinion upon the subject, which 1 have held for many years, and maintained on various occasions, that the examination of prisoners as witnesses, or at least their competency, is favorable in the highest degree to the administration of justice ; that the value of a prisoner's evidence varies according to the circum■tances of each particular case as much as the evidence of any other class of witnesses does ; and that it is, therefore, as unwise to exclude the evidence of prisoners as it would be to exclude tho evidence of any other class of persons artificially chosen." He concludes that the theory must have been that the probability that a prisoner will speak the truth is so much diminished by his interest in the result of the trial that it is not worth while to hear what he has to say. That ground he shows is untenable, for although interest is to be taken into account in weighing the value of evidence it is no reason for refusing to hear the evidence ; and in civil cases interested parties have long ago been made competent witnesses. The present practice, therefore, he considers to be irrational. And he gives a case that came under hia notice which shows how hard it may press against a prisoner. The prisoner, who by the way was defended by counsel, had been tried and found guilty on strong circumstantial evidence. He was asked in the usual way whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, and on being given this opportunity he made a statement which seemed so reasonable that the witnesses for the prosecution were recalled, though the case was over, and examined upon it. The result was that the jury having heard the prisoner's story and satisfied themselves as to the probability of its being tru«,«ek«d leare to withdraw their verdict, and the prisoner went free. Mr Justice Stephen's views must be considered as well thought out, and the result he arrives at will meet with an unanimous yerdict. In the case he quotes as having come under his notice it is clearly shown t \hat an accused person was liberated on a s t a *«njent made by himself while in the Supreme Co!irfc doGk - The case ' ifc must be admitted, « * ver y P e <*r one, but one which might ."«a^nably arise in many instances. If the ace;'<*- ! IP th , ls ins . fc t amje had been allowed to get iiu* tlm . w ! tness box in the lower Court, he iuV^.P?* sibly have convinced the Magistrate a-* did the jury. Of course, as is pointed out, it leaves the door open for an accused person to commit perjury to clear himself of the charge made against him, but on the other hand the evidence he may give may be so tenable that the recalling of the witnesses of the prosecution might throw a different light on the alleged crime. The present law appears to be more for the prosecution of a prisoner than for the purpose of bringing to light the nature and perpetrator of a crime. A person is accused of a crime and the law officers leave no stone unturned to prove him guilty. No thought is given to his probable innocence. The question raised by Mr Justice Stephen must in the course of time force itself upon public attention, and the adoption of his suggestion is likely to lead to an enormous amount of good.