BAIL FOR ALBERT CONROY

NZ Truth, Issue 1141, 13 October 1927, Page 4

BAIL FOR ALBERT CONROY

.— •» Why Was News of His Release Suppressed? THE general reasoning of the public is that once a suspected criminal has been refused bail, he remains "m custody." Perhaps that's why life contains so many surprises. FOT? instance when Albert Morgan Conroy, well-known Taranaki squatter and Picture-house proprietor, came before two justices of the peace on rl-iPs of gi-ave charges m August last, it was thought that refusal of i -i mlnt_-well that bail was refused and that pending his appearance m the SutJeme Court for trial, he would remain under the care of the State. whither bail should or should not have been granted is of no moment m n mw that is at once sub judice, nor. for that matter, neither is the questfon of the natural limitations of justices under consideration. Fmrn their own perspective, however, and having their own reasons, TnctloTnf the Peace T. C. Stanners and Ira J. Bridger saw fit to refuse h«fi romukinff that m view of the fact that one of the charges involved an alleged attempt to commit suicide, they could not consider the question. But what has taken place that Conroy, yet to stand his trial, still enjoys his liberty? He is at large and at present residing m Hawera. Tf one turns to the usually well-informed local press, there is no informition as to why Conroy has been granted bail—or even that he is at large. But the' fact remains that he has been released on bail, and there must be a reason. Local Newspapers Keep A Secret And if he is at liberty, it must be assumed that he is legally so. Why, then this great hush-hush? Where was this further application for bail made? If at New Plymouth, why did the matter not reach the public through the press, who did not hesitate to give the details of the court proceedings when Conroy was initially charged? Was the application made m open court with the press representatives away or made behind closed doors while the press were present "m another place"? In any case, hush-hush seems scarcely m accord with established precepts. If an application for bail was made to a magistrate at New Plymouth, because it was considered that J.P.s did not know enough about the facts or their job to do the better thing, it may be almost comprehensible, but if there can be any reason why so well-known an identity as Albert Morgan Conroy should have his name suppressed on a vital matter of public concern, then, that reason would be interesting.