INTERFERENCE WITH JURY

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 202, 24 May 1944, Page 6

INTERFERENCE WITH JURY

Barrett Found Guilty SENTENCE OF SIX MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT After a retiremeet of half an hour a jury in (lie Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday found Jack Barrett, labourer, aged 64, guilty on two charges of attempting to influence members of a jury panel to favour Florence May Radcliffe at her trial for unlawful use. of an instrument nt, the February sessions. The jury made a recommendation to mercy on account of accused’s age. Mr. Justice .Johnston remanded Barrett for sentence later in thi;- day. When the Court resumed, he imposed a sentence of six mouths’ imprisonment. In addressing the jury. Mr. Joseph said Hint accused was charged with the serious offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. He submitted that the Crown's ease was palpably weak. If, indeed, a man called with the purpose of helping Mrs. Radcliffe he must have known the jury panel. Here was no evidence that Mrs. Radcliffe knew Barertt, or that Barrett had been employed by Mrs. Radcliffe. Connell, the principal witness for the Crown, was the only witness who identified Barrett as the man who had called upon him. Connell said he thought he was being intimidated, but there was no evidence to this effect. Surely there could not have been ft weaker witness than Elfvorthy, who said a man had approached hirti and asked for justice. Neither Connell nor Elworthy had suggested that any money hnd been offered them. Only two people, Connell and Miss Elworthy, hnd idetinfied Barrett. Connell said he did not like the expression on Barrett's face, but that was no reason for him picking Barrett out as the man who had called upon him. The weakest identification of all was (hat of Miss Elworthy, who said she identified the man because of his facial expression. Barrett had had the courage to go into the witness-box and face the questions of the Crown Prosecutor. This was evidence that could not ho lightly disregarded. Barrett stood an innocent man till the Crown had proved him guilty. If the jury carefully weighed the evidence, their verdict must be an acquittal on both charges. Tlie Crown Prosecutor, Mr. W. H. Cunningham, addressing tlie jury, said there was ample evidence to prove that the man who had approached Connell had done so with the object of endeavouring to influence him in favour 1 of Mrs. Radcliffe. Connell said he did not like the expression on the face of the man who had called upon him, and the jury could form their own opinion of Barrett's facial expressions, while he hnd been answering questions in the witness-box. Miss Elworthy had sworn that Barrett was the man who had called upon her father on the Saturday afternoon. Barrett had sworn that he was not the man who had called upon the jurors, and had set up an alibi that he was in another place at the time. The jury had to test the veracity of this evidence. The jury were asked to believe that Barrett had remained in bed for 17 days with no oue to look after him while his wife was at business. AVhycherley hnd fworn that he could not make anyone hear him when he called out in the Barrett's.house on one df the vital days. Barrett had not said a word about having been in bed when the detective had interviewed him. Not ft tittle of medical evidence had been produced to prove that Barrett had been in bed all this time. It was an important ease, and the jury had the duty of deciding upon which side the truth lay. Judge’s Summing Up.

Mr. Justice Johnston, in summing up, said it had been said that the detectives should have taken a statement from accused when the charge had been read over to him. A police officer when he had decided to arrest a man should utft question him. If he decided to make a voluntary statement that was his affair.. The charge of attempting to influence jurors was unusual in New Zealand Courts. To those who were crimiiially minded, it would seem to them that if they could interfere with jurors they would be protected. Ouce such a system reared its head it had to be stamped out. At the opening of the Case against Mrs. Radcliffe jurors had stated that they had been approached, and on this account there had had to be a fresh jury panel. The method of conducting the identification parade in this eftse hud been attacked, but he could see nothing wrong about it, A jury must be impartial, and they could not. be so if they had been approached before the case was heard. Accused was charged with attempting to influence jurors, aud if people were allowed to do this it would sound the death-knell ot the jury system. Could they attribute to such a man an innocent purpose? This was a matter entirely for the jury, who hnd also to decide whether accused.was tlie man who hud culled upon the jurymen, Accused said he could not. have been the. man who approached the jurors ns he was ill and in bed at the time. It would have been more satisfactory had there been medical evidence to this effect. The Qrown had to prove its case, and accused was entitled to reasonable doubt. The jury retired at 11.4 a a.m. and returned nt 12.15 p.m. When prisoner came up for sentence at 3 p.m.. Mr. Joseph produced two medical certificates ns to the state of bis health. Counsel said it was difficult to understand why prisoner. Who had le<l a blameless life for 24 years, should have acted as he did. He suggested that prisoner, who was a sick man, should be punished through his pocket by the imposition of a substantial fine. His Honour asked if prisoner had the money to pay n substantial tine; that was not the evidence. ... “The jury have found you guilty ot attempting to influence two separate jurymen. after a trinl that dealt with the circumstances as searchingly and as thoroughly as possible,” said bis. Honour in passing sentence. “I think it is unnecessary for me to emphasize pie seriousness of tlie charge against you. Your counsel stressed it; the Crown prosecutor stressed it; and 1 emphasized that it went to. the foundations of our jury system. With the jury’s verdict I entirely agree, and that’verdict shows that the jury disbelieved everything you said.” Ills Honour said prisoner’s wife had stated that prisoner hnd not been working for some years, and (lint lie did not take any part, in the money-lending business which she carried on. His counsel had asked that n fine should be inflicted upon him. but if tills were done it would be tnntamount to fining his wife. "I cannot .minimize the nature of the crime.” his Honour continued. "1 think it Is a very serious crime to interfere with jurymen, and jurymen and the public should know that any attempt.. to .do so will be iiunished. You are aged b.i and Iwill Hike into account the jury’s recommendation to mercy on that ground. It is not a case for probation, and not a case for a fine. Yon will be sentenced to six months’ iniprisonnient on . each (•barge, the t(‘rms to be concurrent."