UNUSUAL CASE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 859, 4 July 1910, Page 4

UNUSUAL CASE.

CROWN INTERFERES IN CRIMIPfAE PROSECUTION. "X Ravs" writes:—"l have been waiting to see whether any abler pen than mine would be brought into requisition upon tho extraordinary state of affairs recently pungently referred to by his Honour Mr. Justice Edwards with reference to tho withdrawal by the Crown of a man from second trial charged with an indecent assault upon a young femalo at Napier. It will be generally known that it is, and has for many years been, tho practice to re-try cases twice, if- not thrice, where juries disagree and where Crown Prosecutors are untrammelled in the performance of their duties. At Napier in the case above mentioned the Crown Prosecutor is reported to have said, when the charged person as above waa brought before the Court to stand his second trial, through the jury in tho first trial having disagreed, that he was "instructed by the Crown" not to go on with a second trial, whereupon the accused was forthwith discharged, and Judge Edwards, on ordering his release, mado the remarks above referred to. "The House is now sitting, and as the administration of justice without fear or favour must be upheld in this community, ere wo drift into Russian administration, I venture to express the hope that tho Prime Minister will be at once asked by some representative who it was that interfered with the duties of the Crown Prosecutor at Napier and prevented the second trial and procured th< discharge of the accused person, and also that he be asked that the grounds for. such interference be publicly mado known, "It may bo that there is a misunderstanding somewhere, that the Crown is not to blame; if it be so, the sooner the community is mado aware of it, and the uneasy feeling that is likely to arise over tho incident bo prevented, tho better for all concerned." Following is thr. report published nf the matter referred to by our corres-pondent:—-"I am astounded at such a proceeding," declared his Honour, Mr. Justice Edwards, at the Supreme Court (Napier) yesterday afternoon, when the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. H. A. Cornford) announced in inference to the charge of alleged indecent assault against John William Goldfinch, upon which the jury disagreed, that tho Crown were not proceeding with the second trial, which was fixed for to-day. "I am astounded after one trial only; it was without reference to the judge. However, the Crown have power to do so." Mr. Cornford said he would havo made a lengthier statement, but he was speaking while a case was proceeding. His Honour: "If I had anything to do with it, I should not allow it to be done. The statute casts no burden- upon me. Perhaps Mr. Myers knows what is done with prisoners in such cases." Mr. Myers: "I believe, your Honour, that tho gaoler simply lets the prisoner go. Toil are functus officio." Next day the matter again came before tho Court, Goldfinch appearing in custody._ Mr. Dolan (for the prisoner), addressing his Honour, said he presumed tho prisoner would be set at liberty, since the Crown had entered a stay oi proceedings. His Honour said: "All I can say is that I cannot hold him. The Crown has put an end to the proceedings without consulting me. There is a provision in tho law empowering tho Attorney-General, which, of course, also means the Solicitor-General, to stay proceedings, but, curiously enoueh, there is no provision for subsequently dealing'with the prisoner. This Court cannot hold him. and I don't know upon what authority the gaolor can." Goldfinch was then set at liberty.