COURT PROCEDURE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16339, 13 May 1927, Page 7

COURT PROCEDURE

POLICE FORCE CRITICISED “DISCREPANCIES IN EVIDENCE" (Special to the Herald.) AUCKLAND, this day. The practice of the police in regard lo the taking of statements from accused persons was the subject of criticism in the Supreme Court yesterday. Counsel for one accused, Air. R. A. Singer, said lie did not desire to attack the police force individually or collectively, but he felt that at present there was public unrest with regard to the force. He was compelled to draw attention to the serious discrepancies in the evidence of the three Crown witnesses. Comment had been made recently upon the habit and method of taking statements from accused persons, and the practice was all the more disturbing when it was stated that such methods were not allowed in England. Air. Justice Stringer: It is not forbidden at all.

Mr. Singer: A preliminary remark must be made warning the accused person. Mr. Patterson said the evidence for the defence had been nothing more or less than a. foul vilification of Hie evidence of, the chief witness, for the' prosecution. LIKE OF DEPOSITIONS .

“There is a very great looseness in the way depositions are used, and I think it is generally the fault of counsel for not objecting to the methods adopted,” said Mr. Justice'Stringer at another stage, when a question arose as to whether evidence taken - in the Police Court could be submitted to a jury if not repeated in the higher court. “Depositions are only taken in the Police Court for the purpose of showing that there is a prime facie case, sufficient to justify the prisoner being sent for trial. The only value of the depositions in the Supreme Court, in my opinion, is in cases in which there is a flat contradiction of

evidence, and then the man’s previous statements can be put before him.”