IDENTIFICATION

Hokitika Guardian, 5 February 1927, Page 2

IDENTIFICATION

QUESTIONED AGAIN

[«v TKI.la.-HAPIt—PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND. Feb. 4. The value of police identification parados and the reliability of the evidence given by children, were again discussed in the Supreme Court, when Edgar Stanley, a married ship’s greaser, was charged with committing three acts of indecency at Whangarei.

Mr Sullivan, for the defence, criticised the methods used bv the police to secure the identification of the accused by girls, all of whom except one had seen him in the road a few minutes prior to the parade. and who waited in a room together before seeing the man lined up in tho Police Station yard. Counsel suggested that the evidence of identification given by children was not to he fully relied upon, owing to tlieir inexperience and age.

Mr Paterson, for the Crown, said there was no reason why the evidence of children could not bo fully relied upon. If they were not going to accept tho evidence of children, they would have one or two things happen. Either there wouh.l be an increase in those offences against children or

parents would take the law into their own hands.

Mr Justice Herdman referred to the evidence of the children. He said that discrepancies would he found in all evidence, such as the speed of motor cars, the force of a blow, or the description of a person’s clothing or face. It they were not going to accept evidence of identification because all the witnesses cTTtI not exactly agree, they would have the unruly section ot the community getting the upper hand, and they would have a state of affairs in this country such as existed in Melbourne and Chicago some time ago. II such an event happened in Xew Zealand. th(' women and children would not lie safe, and property would be in danger. It was the duty of the police to hold an identification parade, in this case, what better identification could he taken ? lie did not know. The accused was found “not guilty.”