CRIMINAL APPEAL

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 20, 24 July 1945, Page 4

CRIMINAL APPEAL

PROPOSED COURT

CHIEF JUSTICE GRATIFIED

Gratification at the proposal to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal in New Zealand was expressed by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) in his charge to the Grand Jury at the opening of the quarterly session of the Supreme Court in Wellington yesterday. He was very glad, he said, to know that what he had considered a blot upon the administration-of justice in this country for many years was likely to be removed.

About the turn of the century, his Honour remarked, a man in England named Beck had been charged with some serious offences. He was convicted, the case having .turned very largely, if not entirely, upon evidence of identity. He served his term—or at least part of it—in prison. It subsequently turned out, however, that he was entirely innocent, that the evidence of identity was wrong, and that he should "never have been convicted. There had been something of an outcry in England and the result was that in 1907 a Court of Criminal Appeal was established. ON PERJURED EVIDENCE. A year later in New Zealand a certain case arose in which two men were charged with murder. They were convicted *f manslaughter and were sentenced to seven gears' imprisonment. Four months later they were released, it having transpired that they had been, convicted on perjured evidence. There was no Court of Criminal Appeal in New Zealand and the result was, according to the best of his Honour's re- . collection, that the Governor remitted the unexpired portion of the sentence. The two men were apparently not even pardoned, but were simply given a remission of their sentence imposed for an offence they had not committed. ■■■■__ In that case, too, said his Honour, there was another incident which in itself, if there had been a Court of Criminal Appeal, would have - enabled that Court to redress a mischief caused by the conviction by either, according to the view it took, quashing the conviction or ordering a new trial. Prior to the Court,of Criminal Appeal Act in England the Court of Crown Cases Reserved, as it was called, could only consider matters of law which arose in the course-of a criminal trial, and that, substantially, was the position in. New Zealand to this day. But with the establishment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in England, power was given to set a verdict aside, not only if there had been a wrong decision on a question of law, but ifthere was on any ground a miscarriage of justice. . . , In the New Zealand case to which he had referred, apart from the perjured evidence, there was no doubt that if there had been a Court of Criminal Appeal, the position would have been altered. "The point I am. making is that in every autonomous country under the British Crown, according to the best of my information, a Court of Criminal Appeal was established following the English precedent in 1907; everywhere, that is, except in. New Zealand. But now, at long last, after nearly 40 years, I am glad to notice that a Court of Criminal Appeal Bill has been introduced in Parliament," said his Honour. POSSIBLE MISCARRIAGE. Both at the Bar and from the Bench he had frequently advocated such a course, but nothing had been done up to the present. In some cases where questions of law in criminal trials had come before the Court of Appeal as a Court of Crown Cases Reserved, the Court had come to the conclusion that errors had taken place or that something had happened in connection with a trial which might have led to a miscarriage of justice, but the Court of Appeal had no power to do anything except affirm the conviction in such circumstances. It was'not .altogether right to say that, because the Court on at least two or three occasions had ventured to suggest that relief might be granted under that section of the Crimes Act which permitted the direction of a new trial. That meant that the Executive Government was put into the position of deciding something judicially. He was not blaming any particular Governmdht, since the legislation had been in force since 1903, but over that period the Court of Appeal in some cases had considered it was justified in practically recommending to the Governor - General - in - Council that there should be a new trial. His Honour said he had . always thought that that was placing the Court of Appeal in an invidious and embarrassing position, because -the answer might be made that the Court was trenching on the functions of the Executive Government. Personally, he was very glad to know that the position was likely to be remedied.