CONOLLY’S IDEAS.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 186, 14 August 1901, Page 3

CONOLLY’S IDEAS.

ADDRESS TO GRAND JURY

(Special to Times.) Auckland, last night,

Mr Justice Conolly, when charging the Civaiul Jm j- at tho opening of the criminal sittings of the Supremo Court yesterday, made the following remarks at the conclusion of his review of tho eases subsubmitted In leaving a case for the consideration of tho Grand Jury I have usually abstained from giving them any instructions, except that before throwing out a bill they should call and examine carefully every witness whoso name is on the back of it, because the testimony of all these witnesses united may establish prima facie ease. I have dono this because I have always assumed that many of tho Grand Jury have acted in the same capacity before and fully understand their duties, but on the last occasion when I addressed the Grand Jury in this Court I was surprised at tho number of cases in which they returned “no bill,” as in some of theso there appeared upon depositions, which, of course, had been before me, but not before the Grand Jury, strong prima facie evidence. I could only assume that they had, in fact, been trying tho cases, returning “no bill” when there appeared to be any doubt of the guilt of tho accused person, and that I was correct in some in assuming this was proved to me by the letter which I afterwards received from one of the Grand Jury, commenting on what he considered to be tho severity of tho sentence passed by me upon the prisoner, and stating that they had been very near throwing out the bill. In his" ease it was a most improper letter since it disclosed or at least partially disclosed what had passed in the grand jury room, which was contrary to the oath which he had taken. Tho grand jury should, in my opinion, first take into consideration that the case had already been before tho justices, and in most instances before tho Stipendiary Magistrates well accustomed to their work, which, in fact, is the strongest argument used for dispensing with grand juries altogether. They have already been dispensed with in district courts, of which courts it is proposed, although I do not know whether the proposal will bo made law, j largely to increase jurisdiction. I have always been opposed to the abolition of grand juries, for although the greater part of their duties may be a mere matter of form, cases will occasionally arise in which a committal has been so obviously wrong that the accused person should be spared the indignity of appearing in the dock. But when such is tho case, the fact will usually have made itself manifest to the Judge, and will be intimated by him to the Grand Jury, and although I should always abstain" from attempting to interfere with them, I have on some rare occasions expressed an opinion that the case upon which I was commenting was a very weak one. That which the Grand Jury should do is to obtain from the witnesses the main facts to which they can depose. If these facts are such as require to be rebutted, a prima facie case is established, to be tried in Court, where both sides will be freely and

impartially heard, and the accused persons will have the benefit of all reasonable doubts of their guilt, but it would bo a mistake on the part of the Grand Jury to throw out a bill because such doubts should present themselves to their minds. I regret to have to trouble you with these remarks, but from what occurred on the last occasion they would appear to be necessary. I cast no imputation on the last Grand Jurv. I have no doubt that they endeavored to do their duty rightly and conscientiously, but it appears to me that they must have gone somewhat beyond it in'several instances. I need not trouble you with any further observations, but hope you will believe that in what I have said my only wish is to advise and assist you. and not to interfere with you."