Conviction and Sentence Quashed

Chronicle (Levin), 7 February 1948, Page 3

Conviction and Sentence Quashed

unwittliig miscarriage of justit'e WIIS n'l-tiiied in the Suprcnie Court at Palmerston Aorth yesterday when John l'iekard I'riseott, a labourer, single, aged h.S years, oi Hamilton, successfully appealed against a decision of Mr J. R. llerd, .S.,\l. who, in the Magistrate's Court ai Palmerston Nortli on Hecember 29. entered a conviction against i'riscott and sentenced liini to three 1 mouths ' gaol for the theH of a suitcase and its contents. In his appeal Priscott cited Sergeant G. Innes as respoudent.. Sergeant. lnnes was reprttseute'd by • the Grown Prosecutor, Mr A. K. Bain, of Wanganui, and Mr G. Crossiey, insjtructed. by Mr G. Keils, a]»pe'ared xoi.1 Blisdott. Mr Justiee Chrislie presided. ... The liearing took tlie form of a retrial, with the Crown again presenting its evidence for the prosecution. Ci'own witnesses were the licensee of the 2.1 asonic Hotel, IL T. Carey,- his | wii'e and dnughter, who gave evidence that a man utimed Anderson had booked Koom 3 on Beceniber 27, left his ca.se at the oliice and had gone straight out again. Later in the day Priscott had attenipted to remo\ e the bag from Poom 5 but had been prevented from doing so. Later a friend of Priseott's named Self had removed the bag and was stopped at the door of the hotel. Anderson had not returned to the hotel' to claim tbe suitcase.

Gergeant Innes gave evidence that when he interviewed Priscott, the latter had claimed that he arrived in Palmerston Aorth by taxi from Wellington with another man named Anderson who had booked the room at the hotel for Priscott. At the police station Priscott had not been able to identify satisfactorily the clotluug and articles in the suitcase. While wituess was away'making inipriries regarding the man Anderson Priscott had run avvay from the station, but later had been apprehended. Giving evidence for the appellant, Arthur' .J ully, a salesman employed by tlie i/urmers' Trading Company at Auckland, stated that the handwriting 011 a doeket for 'tlie sale of a suitcase at £1 2s 9d, was his. Although he eould not remember that particular sale, his sliop stocked the type of suitcase liroduced in court.

Mrs Eiiiina Grace Priscott, of Hamilton, niother # of the appellant, told the court that her son went to Auckland 011 Deccmber 22 and returned the same day with a number of purchases. These iin-luded a suitcase, identieal with that | produced in court, some pyjamas, shirts, ties and socks. That night slie had paeked the suitcase fqr her sou who left Hamilton the next morning for a holiday. Witness then proceeded to name and describe the various iterns she had paeked into the suitcase. Immediately following the evidence of these two witnesses Mr Bain stated that in view of the evidence it wonld be futile for the Crown to carry the matter any further. Mr ,1 ust'iee Christie: I wish soineone eould lind that man Anderson. Mr. Bain said' he wished to stress the fact that Priscott had himself very largely to lilame for the position in which he had found himself. When interviewed by the police Priscott had made no mention of the fact that his motlier had paeked his suitcase, and by his attitude he had obstrueted the police in their inquiries. Every endeavour had been made by the police to clear the matter up satisfaetorily. Mr Crossiey: Those inquiries were made after the prosecution and conviction of Priscott, and as the Crown lias now virtually abandoned the case, we feel that Priscott is entitled to costs. The pob.ee refused permission for appellant 's witnesses to see the suitcase. If this perniission had been granted we eould have established that there had been a misearriage of justice

without coniiug to the court. Opposing the granting of costs, Mr Bain said it was very unusual in such cases to award costs against the police. Priscott had brouglit trouble on himself. Mr Cliristie allowed the appeal, Jiut made no order in respect of costs. On (he a]>plication of Mr Crossiey he made an order for the return of the property (o its rightful owner and for the return of tlie seeurity on appeal amounting- to £15.