"STATUTORY DECLARATIONS."

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VII, Issue 150, 25 June 1872, Page 2

"STATUTORY DECLARATIONS."

To the Editor oe the Nelson Evening Mail

Sir, — This term has been bandied about of late, and the questionable process has been resorted to in a few instances — m_some as a vindication ; in others in vindictiveness. I send you a letter to the Times on the subject written by that learned jurist, George Bowyer, and dated March 8. Every roan will agree with hitn in saying tbat the " Legislature ought to make every falsehood, on oath or not, affirmed before a legal authority, punishable to the full extent as perjury."

Sir, — The prosecution against Mr. Chaffers suggests a very important matter ior consideration. It is, the question whether ihe Legislature ought not to limit the power of making statutory declarations, in order to prevent their being used for a criminal purpose.

What do we see in this case ? A person in a high station and office— one of the Law Officers of the Crown— a man respected and esteemed by all who knew him, and by the public in general, is driven into Court before the world with his wife, stigmatized with disgraceful charges, because a man goes before a magistrate and makes a statutory declaration. It is no answer to this grievance to say that the man is liable to a prosecution or a"tion for libel. He knew that, and he ran the risk. But what can compensate Sir Travers and Lady Twiss for the injury done to them and the torture inflicted on them ? And, for ought we know, there may be other similar cases in which the victim may not have the moral courage to fight the battle, and may prefer to submit to extortion and pay money rather than meet a statutory declaration. Thus it appears by the evidence of the witness Louisa Harrison, that the defendant said, "He was sure Dr Twiss would rather pay any money than come before a Judge or before society."

It is fortunate that Sir Travers had more moral courage, ior he has revealed a gross ahuse which aught to be at once dealt with ; and if I were still in Parliament I should take it in hand. At present any one may go before a magistrate and make a statutory de laration against any one else, aud then send it forth to the world clothed with a sort of legal or magisterial character and Authenticity.

There is another matter of great importance suggested by this case. Parliament has allowed statutory declarations to be made in lieu of oaths. Thus falsehoods are made easier ; for there are men who would not fear to make a false statutory declaration, but who would hesitate to swear falsely, and there is a traditional feeling of the sanctity ol an oath, even apart from religion.

For remainder of news see fourth page.

But there is this— which applies both to oaths and affidavits, and, , to a more, limited, extent, to statutory dfeclarations. The law of perjury is insufficient.;. It requires to be extended to all cases where an oath is taken or a declaration made before a magistrate or other public officer , and where any person in any. matter or for any purpose swears or declares wilfully that which is false. At present no one is liable for perjury unless the oath is taken in some judicial proceedings, or under some special legislative enactment; and there are other legal distinctions within which moral perjury may be committed with perfect impunity, and tbis occurs in nine cases out of ten. '

A magistrate or other person authorised to administer an oath is not forbidden to receive a declaration on any subject and of any nature imaginable. And it would seem that the person making a declaration of a voluntary nature cannot be punished for a false declaration unless it be within the meaning of Statute 5 and 6 Will. IV., sec. 18; and even then he is not liable for perjury, and can only be charged with a simple misdemeanor. The Legislature ought to make every falsehood, on oath or not, affirmed before a legal authority, punishable to the full extent as perjury.

This amendment of perjury would go far to prevent the abuse of which I complain. But it should also be provided that no magistrate or other person before whom a declaration may be made shall receive such declaration, except in cases in which (adopting tbe words of Statute 5 and 6 Will. IV., cap. 62, sec. 18) it is necessary and.tproper to make such declaration, and the magistrate ,or other officer should he required to satisfy himself that the purpose and object of the declaration is necessary and proper. And the law should require notice in case of doubt, to be given to persons named in and aftected by such declaration, before it is allowed to be made, and in case of objection made by such person, such objection shall be heard in private, unless such person should desire it to be heard in public. These enactments would eventually prevent the recurrence of cases like that of Mr. Chaffers.

This Mr. Chaffers, it seems, is a pettifogging attorney. Such a man out here, probably would eke out a living by becoming what is called on the goldfields a " Miners' Advocate," which with .'jumping claims," or perhaps getting into a Provincial or County Council, would he a preferable way of getting a living to those who are not ashamed to beg, but are ashamed to work. I am, &c, Lex.