The Star. THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1879.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 3355, 9 January 1879, Page 2

The Star. THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1879.

In the case of the alleged manslaughter of the man M'Clatchie the Grand Jury on Monday found no true bill against John Dempsey. It will be remembered that on Oct. 17 last we : pointed out the hardship being inflicted < upon a man who, if we could not say i he was perfectly innocent, had at all < events been acquitted of all blame by a ] jury. "We could not say he was inno- I cent because} to have done so, would 4

have laid us -open to the suspicion of seeking to influence the public mind and tamper with the free course of impartial justice. "We can say now, however, what we were debarred from saying then, that it is scarcely possible for any reasoning intelligence to peruse the evidence presented to the Coroner's Jury without coming to the same conclusion that the Coroner's Jury and the Grand Jury have done, namely, that Dempsey could not be held responsible for M'Olatchie's death. Here then we have the spectacle of a perfectly innocent man, acquitted by a jury on Oct. 10, held a prisoner until Jan. 6, a period of very nearly three months, his fair fame tarnished, his interests seriously jeopardised, if not altogether ruined, and all because a party of irresponsible police were not perfectly satisfied. Perhaps it will be as well for us to remind the public briefly of the facts of this case. Dempsey was brought before the Besident Magistrate's Court on Oct. 8, on a charge of having " violently assaulted " M'Clatchie. He was remanded until the 11th following. M'Clatchie died. An inquest was held on Oct. 10, Dempsey being present in custody as being involved in the death of: the deceased. The jury, by returning a verdict that M'Clatchie "died from natural causes," freed Dempsey from all suspicion of being the cause of his death. On Oct. 11 Dempsey again appeared at the Police Court to answer the charge of assault, but, the prosecutor being dead, the charge was " withdrawn." Dempsey, as a matter of course, was immediately relieved of that crime. But the police were not satisfied. They immediately constituted themselves into a Court of Review over the evidence sabmitted at the inquest, treated the verdict as having no existence, and brought a charge against him of manslaughter — the manslaughter of a man whom a jury upon their oaths had declared died from natural causes, and upon this charge Dempsey was committed by a very complaisant Bench — the Police Magistrate — for trial.

Now, we have no desire to reflect upon either the character or the ability of the police who, no doubt, hare done only what the law allows and their sense of duty dictates ; but we are bound to point out the almost certain injustice that will result — as in this case of M'Olatchie's — from them being permitted to exercise the authority of such a position as they have assumed. If there is a danger that in some cases persons guilty of crime may escape punishment through the decisions of a Coroner's Jury — a supposition for which there is not the slightest warrant — and it is held desirable that an authority to review the decisions of that tribunal should be established, then we say decidedly the Resident Magistrate should not be that authority, and it should not lie in the discretion of any policeman to bring that authority into operation. It will be found that a policeman — and a Police Magistrate, too — reverses the natural law. He holds every man charged with an offence to be guilty, until he is proved innocent. Even as we have seen in Dempsey's case — though a jury had declared him innocent, the police still believed him to be guilty. We do not by any means blame the police for this. Coming bo frequently as they do in contact with the criminal class it is natural that they should be dubious about the honesty of any, and probably the stronger the feeling of distrust obtains, the better the police will be found. It may be to the interest of society to encourage such a feeling ; but clearly it quite unfits the Police for the position of sitting as a Court of Review upon the decisions of a jury. Now, we may be permitted to enquire whether the Police took action in Dempsey's case by authority of the Attorney-General, the Resident Magistrate, or whether they acted entirely upon their own responsibility ? As the Coroner's inquest was held on the 10th, and the charge of manslaughter was preferred on the 11th, it scarcely admits of doubt that the Attorney- General gave no authority in the matter. The depositions could not have gone to "Wellington, received consideration, and instructions come back in time. We cannot believe that the Resident Magisteate would take the responsibility of giving any instruction to the police in such a case — it would certainly be a most extraordinary and most arbitrary abuse of authority if he did. In short, it would be another instance of his sitting as judge whilst de facto the prosecutor. If he did so — which we cannot believe — he might just as well have peremptorily ordered Dempsey into custody for three months without going through the idle farce of a seeming investigation, with the foregone conclusion of committing him. 3ho police, therefore, musk be held entirely responsible for having set their irresponsible opinion higher tban that of a jury sworn to impartial judgment, and, in the result, with having done a gross wrong to an innocent man. It ia surely monstrous that any mere constable or magistrate should have the power to set aside the verdiot of a jury as if it were of no moment, and perpetrate such a gross injustice. Let us suppose that instead of being a strong man, the victim of these arbitrary proceedings had been a weak woman, or a woman in very delicate health, or in a condition when shocks to the nervous system operate with unwonted force, then the excitement and the suspense of these unnecessary and prolonged proceedings, acting upon a sensitive mind and frame, would very probably have had a serious effect upon her life. Thus an irresponsible and, at present, a not clearly known authority, in seeking punishment for a purely assumed crime might have been morally guilty of one just as great. If Dempsey had been unable to find bail he would have had to have lain in gaol for three months though declared by a jury innocent of the crime laid to his charge. As it is, his liberty has been curtailed, he has been put to expense, and has suffered both in mind and reputation, and for no other reason, that the public know of, than because his acquittal by a jury did not satisfy the police. We have yet to learn that it is required that they should be satisfied in such a matter. Their duties are purely executive, and in no sense either deliberative or judicial. It ia held by jurists better that ten guilty persons should escape rather than that one innocent should suffer. Dempsey has suffered, and, it seems to us, has suffered by the exercise of as arbitrary and unjust h. power as can well be imagined. Our interest in this case, however, is that the same thing may happen again, to-morrow

— the verdict of a Coroner's jury when it declares a man innocent affords no security in this Colony that he will regain his liberty — it can be set at naught by the police or by some other authority not clearly visible. Liberty under our present law, or under our present administration of the law, becomes in such a case a delusion and justice a farce. It is absolutely necessary that there should be an inquiry into this case, so that this extraordinary power should stand revealed, and so that the legislature should be afforded an opportunity to define it clearly, or — better still — to abolish it altogether.