A Solicitor Rebuked.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 February 1922, Page 4

A Solicitor Rebuked.

INCIDENT IN AUCKLAND SLBREME COURT.

Soiuu embarrassment was evinced by Mr Justice Stringer on Saturday morning, when James John Backer, who had been lound guilty of attempted rape on an 18-year-old guri at tho Bay of Islands, stood before him for sentence, ills Honour deferred his decision until Monday morning (says the Auckland “Star”).

“After careful consideration I am satisfied that 1 ought not to allow the statements made by Mr Singer, as to there being mitigating circumstances in this case which were not disclosed at tho trial, to influence me in any way in deciding as to the appropriate sentence to be passed upon the accused. 'File suggestion, as I understand it, is that ii the whole of the facts bad been placed before a jury they might reasonably have acquitted the accused upon the grave charge which they, in fact, convicted him. and have found him guilty only on one or other of the minor counts of the indictment. The explanation for failing to put the alleged mitigating circumstances before the 1 jury was that the accused, under legal advice, had made a statement in writing t« the police purporting to give a true version of what had taken plae e between himself and the girl, Mere Cooper, when he called at tho house of the latter’s parents on January 9th, but which in fact suppressed certain j material facts, which had the effect of I making the statement mitrue in its ; most important part.” Commenting upon the defence. His Honour continued: ‘-‘T find it difficult to believe that any solicitor could have given such improper and foolish advice. Tt was optional with the accused whether or not he made any statement at all, hut if he elected to make a statement, T cannot understand any solicitor advising him to do otherwise than to make a true statement, and one to which he was prepared to adhere. Assuming, however, that* such advice was given, and that the accused had acted upon it, the proper! course for counsel at the trial to have taken was to have rectified the initial blunder and to have frankly admitted that tho statement made by the accused was false, and to endeavour to establish what he was instructed were the real facts of the case. By allowing the statement made by the accused to go before the jury without qualification, he in effect, invited them to accept the statement made therein that the accused, on the occasion in question, had neither entered the house nor even spoken to the girl, the neejeary jmrdi cation being that the girl, nefinied ly some of the motives suggest;jd in the statement, but as to the cxixtenr? ( ,f whiich there was no evidence whateve-. had concocted the story fold hv her qnd had supported it by wilful and corrupt perjury. Such a method of conducting nl defence, in my opinion, is irreconcilable with the highest traditions of the Bar.”