NINE MONTHS FOR CONTEMPT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 201, 20 May 1920, Page 6

NINE MONTHS FOR CONTEMPT

REFUSAL TO GIVE EVIDENCE

YOUNG WOMAN PUNISHED

HAYNE AND NEYLON REMANDED

Gladys Batchclor, the principal witness for tho Crown against James Reynolds Havne (a Dunedin chemist) and Norman Neylon (of Wnimnte), yesterday refused again to give evidence, and received a sentence of nine months' imprisonment for contempt of Court. Hayne and Neylon were charged with having unlawfully used an instrument to procure abortion. Tho case had been previously adjourned by reason of the witness's refusnl to speak. • Mr. Justice Herdman was on the bench. - Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown. Hayne was represented by Mr. H. F. O'Leary, and Neylon by Mr P. W. Jackson. J In the witness-box Gladys Batchelor said she was 21 years of age. She resided with her people at AVaimate. ■•Mr. Macassey: Do you know the aceusetl Nevlon?—Witness: "Yes." AVere vou keeping company with Neylon in September last?—"l refuse to answer because my answer may incriminate me." How will it incriminate you ?—"My evidence mav not be the same as it was before, and I will be had up for per. jurv." His Honour: That is no excuse. Tou have sworn to give evidence on oath. You roust give that evidence. Am Ito understand that the only ground on which vou refuse is that you may commit perjury?—" Yes." . Mr. Macassey: I wovld point out to Your Honour that she has already given truthful evidence on three occasions, and the last time in Wellington she declined to give evidence. His Honour: On what occasions did sho give evidence before? Mr, Macassey (to His Honour): On the first occasion she gave evidence freely in the Magistrate's Court; on the second she gave evidence freely in the Supremo Court: and on her second appearance in the Court at Dunedin she had great- hesitation in giving her evidence. She declined to give evidence here at tne last sittings of the Supreme Court. (To witness); Since then you were prosecuted in Dunedin, were you not, for allowing abortion to be procured upon you?— "Yes." You were convicted and were releases upon tho rising of the Court?—" Yes." You are now at liberty?—"Yeo." His Honour (to Mr. Macassey): What do you propose to <to? Mr. Macassey: The Court must bo satisfied that the witness has reasonable ground for apprehending danger. I submit there is no ground whatever. She has given truthful evidence on threo occasions, and if she gives truthful evidence now she cannot incriminate herself. His Honour (to witness): I want to point out to you that if you tell tho truth, having sworn to do so, you havo nothing whatever to fear. Do you understand that?—" Yes." You have sworn to tell the truth, and you refuse to do it?—" Yes." His Honour: Very well. Mr, Macassey; 1 would also point out that at Dunedin tho witness was charged with every possible offence.' She was acquitted on charges of conspiracy and procuring Hayne to commit the offence, and was convicted on the charge of permitting abortion to be procured. Wo had every possible charge brought against her. She was imprisoned until tho rising of the Court. Therefore it is clear she stands in no peril of being charged. His Honour (to witness): I want to point out to you the position you are in. It is a very serious one. You havo been sworn to tell the truth, and there is no possible ground that I can see which would justify you in suggesting that you can .incriminate yourself, because you havo already been charged with every possible offence arising out of this nl- ' lcged miscarriage, and have been dealt with. So it comes to this: Though you have been sworn to toll the truth, you refuse to answer upon the ground that you may tell something that is false. I adjudge you to be guilty of contempt of Court for refusing to answer a relevant question put to you by counsel for tho Crown. You havo offered no lawful _exi cuso JEor refusing to answer the question. Tt is therefore my duty to sentence you to a term of imprisonment. That I shall do in a few moments. Adjournment Applied For. Mr. Macassey: In these circumstances, I propose to ask that the trial bo adjourned to-the next criminal sittings. Mr. Jackson, on behalf of Neylon, strongly objected to any further remand. Ho pointed out that it was tho fourth time that Neylon had come before tho CourtHis Honour: It cannot be helped, Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson referred to the previous adjournment, and to the statements of counsel upon that occasion. His Honour: It does not matter what anybody said. I have to consider whether the ends of justice will be mot by an adjournment of this case, and in my opinion they will. . . I don't proposo to say anything except this —that in the Lower Court the girl gave evidence which indicated- a crime had been committed. Before the Supremo Court she gave similar evidence, and at the second trial in the Supreme Court I understand ■she'gave similar evidence, more reluctantly. . In Wellington sho refused to give evidence, and to-day she has refused again. Mr. Jackson: But is no consideration to bo given to the prisoners at all? His Honour: They will lie given tho consideration they are entitled to, haying regard to tho necessity of seeing that the ends of justice aro met. Mr. Jackson: But it is a Crown witness that declines to give evidence. His Honour: It is useless to pursue the matter further. Mr. Jackson: I do enter the strongest protest on behalf of Neylon. The case looks more like one of persecution than of prosecution. His Honour: I cannot allow you to say that. Mr. Jackson: I beg Your Honour's pardon if I have gone too far; but I submit I have some justification for saying so. Mr. O'Leary intimated on behalf of Havne that he did not consent to tho application for an adjournment. He desired to protest, particularly in view of the fact that this was not the first occasion on which the accused had been brought to trial in the Supreme Court. If the case had been simply that the girl, after giving evidence in the Lower Court, had refused to give evidence at tho first trial in the Sunreme Court, the Crown application would have had more strength behind it. The tact was, howover, that on two occasions Hayne and Nevlon had been tried. A jury had acquitted them on one charge, and on the other count a jury had disagreed. His Honour discharged the jury and mado an order for adjournment. Hayno and Neylon were both granted oail, without opposition from tho Crown. Gladys Batchelor was then dealt with. His Honour ordered that sho be imprisoned (without hawl labour) for a ■ period of nine months.