LAW REPORT.

New Zealand Police Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 17, 6 May 1914, Page 294

LAW REPORT.

The following report taken from the Melbourne Argus of 24th May, 1912, is republished for general information : Finger-print Evidence. High Court Decision; “Signature of the Hand" sufficient. The High Court yesterday gave a pronouncement on the question of finger-print evidence. Tne question came up on an application made by Edward Parker for special leave to appeal against his conviction in the Court of General Sessions in March, on the ground that the evidence adduced at the trial was not sufficient to warrant the conviction, inasmuch as the finger-print was the only evidence connecting him with the robbery. The case was one arising from a robbery of jewellery from the warehouse of Messrs. Webster and Cohen on February 4. Parker was charged before Judge Johnston in the Court of General Sessions, and convicted on evidence that certain finger-prints were identical with the prints of Parker’s fingers. A special case was stated for the State Full Court, and, on the judgment of Mr. Justice Hodges and Mr. Justice Cussen, the conviction was upheld, the Chief Justice dissenting. Yesterday the application for leave to appeal came before the High Court (the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Barton, and Mr. Justice Isaacs). Mr. Bryant (instructed by Mr. N. IT. Sonenberg) contended that finger-print evidence alone could not be accepted as sufficient in itself, and that certain evidence should not have been admitted. It should not be accepted because Detective Potter had examined 20,000 finger-prints and found no two identical, that therefore no two finger-prints could be found that were identical. On the present state of knowlege of the subject, such evidence amounted only to a statement of opinion/ and it was unreasonable to accept it.

Mr. Justice Isaacs.—You wish us to lay down that no conviction can be sustained on finger-print evidence alone? Mr. Bryant.—ln effect it comes to that. There must be corroboration of such evidence before it can be accepted.

The Chief Justice, in giving the judgment of the Court, said the application must be refused. The Court was asked to allow the point to be argued whether the evidence of a finger-print was sufficient to support a conviction, in the hope that a rule would be laid down that it was not. The evidence of similarity of signature had always been accepted as evidence of identity. That there was nothing so satisfactory as the signature of the hand was recognized in all parts of the world, and in some places had been recognized for centuries. In this case the signature of the prisoner’s hand was found in the place forcibly broken into under circumstances which showed that it could only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed. It was impossible, in these circumstances, to say that there was no evidence to go to the jury. The application was refused. (See Police Gazette, 1912, page 310.) (C.R. 12/222.) (C.R. 14/22.)