APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 3, 28 September 1918, Page 2

APPEAL COURT

TRIAL OF A PUNJABI

INTERESTING LEGAL POINT

The/ Appeal Court sat yesterday to hear a case from .Auckland stated by His Honour.. Mr. Justice Stringer for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. On the Bench were His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), His Honour Mr. Justice Cooper, His' Honour Mr. Justice. Chapman, and His Honour Mr. Justice Sim. .The'base'was' of a most unusual character. Ou April 17, 1918, a Punjabi named Nunda. was charged with having wrongfully opened two letters not his own property. The trial of the accused took place at r| 'e Awamutu, and at 1 the close of the .hearing/the .accused pleaded guilty and was in the ordinary way committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. When the accused was brought- before His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer at Auckland for sentence, counsel on -his-be-half stated that the'acousetl did not understand English, and that in pleading "guilty he did not understand the nature of the charge brought against him. nor had he intended to admit, the commission of any offence* It was also pointed out that '. the only evidence given at the hearing was that of'witnesses called for- the Crown. ■ The accused was. not represented by counsel' at-the first hearing, nor <lid lie crossexamino the witnesses or make r.uy statement on his own behalf. Attached to the depositions which came before the Judge- of the Supreme Court was a certificate sigijed by the Justices stating that the evideuce of the witnesses except two was given in the Punjabi language, duly interpreted, but it was contended that the certificate did not state thnt the evidence of the Eng-lish-speaking witnesses .was interpreted. ..;.<. ;',.,' ,'7 ' ■

'~"Mr. R. A. Stringer, of-Auckland, ' v bo appeared for the prisoner, .contended that Nunda''should be released, and he granted a new trial on account of the irregularity which had taken place. Sir John Salmond, -K.C. (SolicitorGeneral), appeared for the Crown, and contended that the interpretation of the evidence was not a .necessity of 'aw. , .The: Court- was unanimously • of opinion that the Court of Appeal as a Court of Appeal had no power to deal with any such motion to .set aside a trial, but that it should bo a direction to t-he-Judge of > the Supreme--Court that"there should be a distinct proceet'by.iway of a substantive motion L set aside the commitment Of the prisoner for sentence, '