MISCARRAIGE OF JUDGMENT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4321, 23 September 1921, Page 4

MISCARRAIGE OF JUDGMENT.

INNOCENT WOMAN SUFFERS GAOL Pepple arp asking what possible compensation s there for Mr Emma Gooding, a perfectly respects ole and innocent woman, who has undergone two sentences of imprisonment for crimes she never committed. This unfortunate lady is a resident of Littlehampton, and she was tried at the Lewes Assizes in December last on a charge of sending scandalous and defamatory post-cards and letters to her next-door, neighbour, a Miss Edith Swann. In such a matter the prosecution is not undertaken by the Crown, but at the instance of the aggrieved party; but none the less it was effective. ‘The accused was convicted by the jury, and Mr Justice Roche said that he quite agreed with the finding. “Miss Swann must be protected,” he remarked, “the testimony shows that Mrs Gooding sent the post-cards.” The sentenep was teiv days’ imprisonment, the Judge taking into account .the fact that accused had been two and a half months in gaol while awaiting trial. For the scandal of keeping pepple in prison on mere accusations is still part of the British system. Mrs Gooding served the term ordered, and had hardly emerged before the scandalous letters and cards again rained upon Miss Swann. There was a second arrest, a second trial, and another conviction. “The lenient course adopted with you in December was evidently misplaced,” remarked the always self-satisfied Mr Justice ‘Avory. “You must be prevented for some time from continuing this abominably persecution of Miss Swann.” Then he ordered twelve months’ imprisonment. Mrs Gooding * had all. along protested her innocence. She wanted to appeal, but the Court refused her leave to do so, and she served the greater part of the- sentence. All at once, while she was in prison, more unpleasant letters came to Miss Swann, and this time a Scotland Yard expert got to work. The result was that the Home Secretary sent the whole matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal, where it was dealt with. “This woman is perfectly innocent of the offences of which she has been accused,” were the words in which the representative of the Director of Public Prosecutions opened his statement. In a flew sentences he \was able to satisfy the Judges that Mrs Gooding could not possibly have been the person who wrote the scandalous matter, and the two convictions against her were quashed. "Had I not been released,” she said, when restored to her husband, "I should have died. I am sure that I could never have existed until January.” Now, as we have said, arises the question of compensation, and the further question: What can compensate the woman for the atrocious injustice done to her in the name of the law ?

OTHER CASES. Revived by the infamous wrong done 'to Mrs Gooding is the Beck case. Mr Adolf Beck was twice convicted — once in 1895, and again in 1904 —of frauds he did not commit, and he served sentences. The real offender was a person who so closely resembled him as to be described as his dpuble. In Mr Beck’s case also it was a Scotland Yard man who established the innocence pf the accused, who received money compensation. It was owing to the Beck case, in a very considerable degree, that the Court of Criminal Appeal was set up. We have seen how it failed fi work in the case of Mrs Gooding, since the wiseheads refused her leave to appeals Another case recalled here is that of Mr William Thompson, of New Cross, also twice sentenced for frauds he did not commit. No fewer than twenty-one witnesses identified Mr Thompson, amongst them being the man who committed the crimes. But what are these cases, after all, com-

pared to Frans Spearin, who, some thirty years ago—perhaps more—was convicted in Melbourne of a criminal assault on a woman and ordered three floggings, two of which he actually underwent. Then the woman confessed to being the author pf a trumped-up story. She was punished for her perjury. Spearin was "compensated.” On no official record is another story. Again the locale is Australian. In this case a man served some five years for "burglary,” for the Woman whose "honour” he saved when the husband had appeared unexpectedly in the> night held her peace, and for her sake he suffered.