CORRESPONDENCE

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160731, 18 August 1920, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE

To the Editor.* Sir, —On Monday and. Tuesday, the llih and 12th days of February, 1918, 1 appeared in* the Supreme Court at Wanganui before Ills Honor Mr Justice Edwards as Counsel for an accused man who was charged with having committed the crime of arson in January of the same year. The duties of a barrister are, I venture to think, not as well-known among the public \ps Ihey should be. Perhaps I may say that primarily they are to fearlessly represent his client and to place before the tribunal all arguments that may be made use of on behalf of his client. The rights of the client to be represented fearlessly and to have those arguments put forward are truly and really the rights of the public, and the safeguarding of those rights requires from time to time the most jealous watching. The accused was convicted and on my rising in the Court to plead in mitigation of penalty, his Honor Mr Justice Edwards stated that I had accused an innocent man of the crime of which my client was convicted. As wms natural and proper, I denied this statement. for, as a fact, I had accused no one of the crime, as I obviously could not do such a thing, I not having been an eye-witness of the commission °of the offence itself. On Friday, the loth February, the prisoner came before tho Judge for sentence. I had left Wanganui on Tuesday, the 12th February, and was back in Auckland on the 15th February. In the course of his remarks in sentencing the prisoner his Honor Mr Justice Edwards characterised my conduct of the defence as “infamous,” and '‘contrary to ah the traditions of the bar” and “in itself disgraceful,” in that I had accused an innocent man of the crime of which my client had been found guilty. These remarks were published in the next issue of the Wanganui Chronicle. Tho report of these remarks ivas brought to my knowledge some time later and I immediately placed tho matter in the hands of tho Council of tho Auckland District Law .Society for investigation, less in the interests of myself than those of tho public wlmse rights were being very seriously threatened. From that day to this I have most carefully held silence on the matter until it could be so investigated, such a course seeming to me to be both proper and dignified. It is only quite recently that a finding could be come to upon it. The matter was first of all put into Ibc hands of the Attorney-General, tho Honourable Sir F. Beil, K.C., then into those of the- New Zealand Law Society,' and the very important rights of barristers and the public generally wore referred to the General Council of tho Bar of England. Finally, quits recently, a special committee of tho New Zealand Law Society held an inquiry and as a result that Committee has found that I was justified in tho course that I adopted at the trial. Seeing the publicity given at tho time to the remarks of his Honor Mr Justice Edwards, and in view of the extremely important public rights that l ave been vindicated, I consider that Iho conclusion should be made public. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and no effort can be too great and no vigilance can be too constant, if liberty of speech, liberty of action and liberty of person, within the proper limits of our law 7 , arc to be safeguarded and maintained, and if accused persons are not to bo in danger of being deprived of their rights of defence.—l am, etc., RICHARD N. SINGER.