LAW OFFENDERS

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12607, 18 November 1926, Page 6

LAW OFFENDERS

IDENTIFICATION METHODS JURY CONSIDER THEY! UN FAIR, Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH. November 17. The police method of identifying people suspected of offences was criticised by counsel, judge, and jury when a case, that rested on identification, came before the Supreme Court. Charles Thomas Lascelles was charged with having interfered with a littTe girl in a picture theatre. The girl and her companion, who identified him, were the chief witnesses. Mr Thomas, for the accused, said it was absolutely unsafe lor a jury to accept the identification ot girls. Mr Justice Stringer said”tliat the ense must be considered with great care. The offence alleged had been committed in a theatre where tho means of seeing people were not good, idle children were taken round different theatres, and their minds were more or less in a state til anticipation Timv savv the accused in one of the theatres I 1? tlle =>nd later identified him again at the police stntion. His Honour agreed very largelv vvith counsel’s criticism of the method of securing identification. The jury returned a verdict of not S’Hltvj, the foreman adding that there should be some stricter methods of identification to avoid mistakes. “The jury consider,” he added, “the present method is an uniair one of bringing a person before the court. The jurv wishes the accused to he discharged without a stain on his character.” His Honour: Y'ou have done that bv acquitting him.