ALLEGED TAMPERING WITH JURORS

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 196, 17 May 1944, Page 6

ALLEGED TAMPERING WITH JURORS

Three Counts Thrown Ou I, DISAGREEMENT ON TWO OTHERS

At the conclusion yesterday afternoon of the trial in the Supreme Court. Wellington, of Jack Barrett, labourer, aged 64. on charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice by approaching members of a jury panel, the jury found him not guilty on three counts and announced that they were unable to agree on the other two. Accused is to be tried next. Monday on the two counts ou which there has been no decision. The counts on which the jury acquitted accused were those of attempting to pervert the course of justice by approaching Bruce lan Cossar, of attempting to bribe Cossar and of attempting to pervert the course of justice hy approaching Harry Mason Norling. The two counts on which the jury failed to agree were those of attempting to pervert the course of justice by approaching Francis William Elworthy and Thomas Vincent Connell. All these men had been summoned to serve on juries at the February sessions of the Court, and it was alleged that an attempt had been made to cause them to favour Florence May Radcliffe, who was tried at those sessions for unlawful use of an instrument.

Mr. Justice Johnston was on the bench. The Crown prosecutor, Mr. W. 11. Cunningham. conducted the prosecution, and Mr. W. J. Stacey appeared for accused. The hearing of evidence having finished on Monday, only addresses by Mr. Stacey and the Crown prosecutor and the summing up were heard yesterday. Mr. Stacey said that the case regarding Connell, though the Crown’s strongest, was palpably weak. He had identified accused at an idenitfication parade, but he had walked only half-way.down the line of men. Cossar had merely picked out accused at the parade as being the man there most like the man who had approached him. Elworthy could not identify him. though his daughter had done so. The father would hare bad a far better opportunity to see him than the daughter, who had watched through a window. Norling was unable to identify the man' at a parade. Mr. Cunningham said that if it was impossible for accused to have left his home at the time of the occurrences, as he alleged, medical evidence to that effect could- have and should have been produced. He pointed out that accused had said that on February 6, the day Connell was approached, he had visitors at his home, but his wife had said that there were none that day. . Mr. Justice Johnston said that the case presented difficulties, but it was an important case. Juries must not be interfered with. People who interfered or .attempted to interfere with juries were defiling the spring of justice. It was just as important that a -jury be free from interference as it was for a judge to be free from interference. Judges refused to sit even in civil cases if they had the slightest interest in them. Referring to a statement by Mr. Stacey that the Crown could have, chosen to bring the matter before a judge alone as a charge of contempt of Court, but had elected to proceed under the Crimes Act. his Honour said that where one had an important criminal case pending and it became known that jurors had been approached, for the sake of jurors and the sake of the country it was as well that a case be submitted to a jury, whatever its verdict, so that it would be known that juries would be protected in the performance of their duties.

The jury retired at 12.25 p.m. and returned- at 3.35 to have read to them notes of the evidence given by Connell and Eileen Elworthy, which took 20 minutes. They returned at 4.35 with the verdict and the announcement of disagreement. ■