Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

FINGER-PRINTS.

The following report is taken from the Melbourne Herald of 15th April, 1912, and is published for general information : Finger-prints. Are they Evidence ? Full Court says “ Yes.” Conviction sustained.—kb the conclusion of the trial of Edward Parker in the Court of General Sessions on March 12, Judge Johnston, on the application of Mr. IT, W. Bryant, who appeared for the prisoner, reserved a question for the Full Court as to the extent to which finger-prints are evidence against an aocused person. The exaot question submitted for judgment by the higher Court was : “ When the only evidence against an accused person depends upon the resemblance between finger-prints, as in this case, whether such evidence is sufficient to support a conviction.” The accused man, Edward Parker, was charged with having between the evening of Saturday, February 3, and the morning of Monday, February 5, broken into the premises of Messrs. Cohen Brothers, at 382 Collins Street, and stolen therefrom goods to the value of about £3OO. The evidence was that on the Monday morning when the premises were opened at the usual hour it was found that they had been broken into some time after 1 p.m. on the previous Saturday. A bottle of ginger beer had been left in the office, and this the thieves, or one of them, had opened, and had drunk the contents. The bottle was examined by Detective Potter, the finger-print expert of the Criminal Investigation Department, and a print of the middle finger of a man’s left hand was found on it. These were reproduced, and were found to be similar to prints taken from the same finger of Parker. Detective Potter and Inspector Childs, the New South Wales finger-print expert, gave evidence and stated that there was no doubt that the prints were the same, and that the prints of no two persons’ fingers were alike. This was the only evidence connecting Parker with the crime, and the jury convicted him, but the Judge, in order to obtain an authoritative decision, agreed to state the case quoted above. This came before the Full Court, constituted by the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice ITodges, and Mr. Justice Cussen, at a late hour on Friday last, and was partly argued, and the arguments were continued to-day. Mr. C. J. Z. Woinarski, K.O. (instructed by the Crown Solicitor), appeared to support the conviction, and Mr. H. W. Bryant (instructed by Mr. N. H. Sonenberg) to move that it be quashed. Grown''s Case. —Mr. Woinarski to-day continued his reply to Mr. Bryant’s arguments. He said that the method of identification of accused persons by means of finger-prints, although it had only come into vogue in comparatively recent times, was now well established as a method of identification in criminal cases. It had been found to be much superior to photographs, portraits, personal recognition, or footprints. The Chief Justice : I have never seen reports or heard of any scientific person saying so. Mr. Woinarski said that the system was first adopted by Sir William Herschell in India to prevent frauds and impersonation. Sir William had observed the Eastern method of requiring the imprint of a certain finger on all documents in order to prevent disputes arising thereafter. He adopted this system, and required an imprint from a finger on the first receipt given by all State pensioners in order, in case of death or fraud, to prevent impersonation. Sir Francis Galton investigated the method extensively, and in 1902 he published a book on the subject giving the results of his experiments. In 1894 Mr. H. H. Asquith, then Home Secretary but now Prime Minister, appointed Mr. C. E. Troup, of the Home Office ; Major A. Griffiths, Inspector of Prisons ; and Mr. M. L, Macnaughten, Chief Constable of the London Metropolitan Police Force, as a committee to

inquire into the system. In the report of this committee it was stated, — “The materials on which Sir Francis Galton works are impressions taken from the bulbs immediately below the tips of the fingers and thumbs, where the papillary ridges form patterns of well-marked form and of curious shape and variety. The patterns and the ridges of which they are composed possess two qualities which adapt them in a singular way for use in deciding questions of identity. In each individual they retain their peculiarities, as it would appear, absolutely unchangeable throughout life, and in different individuals they show an infinite variety of forms and peculiarities. . . . We are clearly of opinion that, for the purpose of proving identity, the finger-prints examined and compared by an expert furnish a method far more certain than any other. . . . One objection which has been made to the use of finger-prints is that they could not be used for purposes of proof in Courts of law. We are not by any means sure that this is the case. If enlarged photographs of finger-prints were produced and were explained by counsel to a jury, we believe that at the oost of some time and trouble proof of identity could be established. In tracing a criminal the finger-prints would be of much assistance. For verifying identifications they would give a test which, in the hands of a skilled person, would be unimpeachable. It seems impossible to insist too strongly on the absolute certainty of that criterion of identity afforded by finger-prints. Considered merely as a test of identity, and not as a detective agency, their use becomes at once extremely simple, and, in the hands of an expert, free from any danger of error. ... If the prints of three fingers only of every criminal prisoner were taken before his discharge and kept with his papers in the prison, it would be impossible afterwards wrongly to attribute the conviction to any other person.” Other Cases. Mr. Woinarski, continuing, quoted from Taylor’s Medical Jurisdiction, 1910 edition, approval of the system and a report of the oonviction of two thieves purely on finger-print evidence. Similar references to the matter were quoted from Best on Evidence, 1911 edition, and the 1910 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. There was also a oase reported in the American Criminal Law and Criminology, in which a negro was hanged on purely fingerprint evidence. Mr. Justice Hodges : It is easy to hang a negro in America. Mr. Woinarski said that in the present case there was some evidence other than that of the finger-prints. Mr. Bryant briefly replied. Views of Judges. —The Chief Justice said that he had found such difficulty in the way that he could not agree with Mr. Justice Hodges and Mr. Justice Cussen that these finger-prints were sufficient to warrant a conviction of the accused. He would have felt himself bound to agree with them were it not for the extreme danger of arriving at such a conclusion. The system had not been scientifically proved. The whole theory of it was in absolute opposition to anthropology. Nature cared nothing about individuals, but cared everything about types. He did not know Detective Potter, but assumed that he was an honest man, and that he had spoken the truth when he said that he had examined the finger-prints of 29,000 people. They must not, however, accept his ipse dixit that, therefore, the imprints of no two persons could possibly be alike. That meant merely that he had not met with any two persons whose imprints were alike. That kind of evidence was extremely dangerous, and was not to be looked to in the determination of this case. There was absolutely no other evidence against the accused person, and he (the Chief Justioe) was of opinion that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury as the finger-print evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction. Mr. Justice Hodges said that the question they had to decide was whether finger-print evidence alone was sufficient to support a conviction. The Judge had stated only a particular and not a general question. Evidence of the experts could only be oorroborative of the imprints, and he agreed with the Chief Justice when he said that the evidence of the experts that there could not possibly be similarity should not have been allowed. The impressions themselves were the safest possible evidence that could be submitted to a jury. It was more trustworthy than that evidence of a person who had perhaps had only a momentary glance at the accused person —that was unless the impressions were totally dissimilar or if there were only a line or two which were similar. In that event the Court might disturb a verdict, but that was not the case. He was of opinion that the conviction should be confirmed. Mr. Justice Cussen agreed with Mr. Justice Hodges. On the majority judgment the conviction was confirmed. (C.R. 12/161.)

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/NZPG19120529.2.12

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Police Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 21, 29 May 1912, Page 310

Word Count
1,461

FINGER-PRINTS. New Zealand Police Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 21, 29 May 1912, Page 310

FINGER-PRINTS. New Zealand Police Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 21, 29 May 1912, Page 310

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert