OLD OFFENCES

Hokitika Guardian, 3 August 1929, Page 3

OLD OFFENCES

JUDGE’S EXPLANATION TO JURY.

AUCKLAND, July 31

“The suggestion has been made that once a person has been convicted the fac t is never allowed to be forgotten in ■i Court of Law, but that is not so,” said Mr Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court following evidence for the Crown relating to a charge of forgery. Evidence was given by accused, who, when questioned by Mr Hubble, for the Crown, admitted that he was convicted several times before 1926. Counsel If or the defence later referred! to this admission, stating that it was unfortunate that old offences should be recalled, as this was likely to prejudice an accused person in the eyes of the jury. , It summing up, his Honour said it was wrong to suppose that because a 1 person had'once been convicted his past offences would necessarily count against him on a- trial’ by jury. ~ “If this man had not gone into the witness-box it would have been against the law to mention his previous convictions,” his Honour explained to the jury. “You would have been entitled to assume that lie was a man of good character,..and tried, him accordingly. If a man gives evidence and' holds himself out as a truthful witness and he turns out to be a man with convictions for dishonesty against him, it is only right that the jury should know the- character of' the man they are. asked to believe. For that reason only i s the Crown Prosecutor allowed to cross-examine a person about his previous convictions.!’. >.: •. . •.:.