MR BEAMISH'S CASE.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1010, 16 March 1883, Page 2

MR BEAMISH'S CASE.

The .circumstances under which the charge against Mr George Beamish for embezzlement was this morning withdrawn forcibly suggest that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Win n the case was called on, Mr Barton, counsel for the prosecution, stated that since the last adjournment £67 odd, the amount of dog tax collected by Mr Beamish, had been paid into the County fund at the Bank of New Zealand by Mr Hamerton, on behalf of the prisoner, and that he was instructed to state that Mr Horner, the informant, under the circumstances, had no desire to press the charge, and, by permission of the Court, would withdraw it. Counsel also stated, in reply to the Court, that Mr Horner did not make the application, on the ground that he was satisfied that no crime had been committed, as he was convinced to the contrary, but rather as a consenting party, and as an act of clemency to the prisoner under the circumstances related, more especially as he had undergone a month’s imprisonment. Mr Barton also said that the information could not be withdrawn without the permission of the Court. Now it seems to us that to permit the withdrawal of the information under these circumstances was, as a matter of public policy, utterly wrong. The only occasions upon which informations for felonies should be allowed by the Court to be withdrawn are when the Court has been satisfied that the proceedings were commenced under an erroneous impression as to guilt, or where evidence without which the prosecution must fail is not forthcoming, or circumstances of a similar nature which would render a continuation of proceedings simply a waste of the time of the Court. We are satisfied that the legislature never intended that the discretion vested in the Court as to the withdrawal of criminal informations should be exercised in cases such as Beamish’s. When we say this it is specially in view of the fact that the prosecuting counsel openly stated that the prosecutor was not satisfied of the absence of criminal intent in the prisoner, but was satisfied to the contrary. The position is this:—A crime committed is not a crime against the individual injured by it, but an offence against the community. The State punishes persons guilty of crimes because they are crimes against the whole community, and as a deterrent to others ; but the State does not punish the criminal for the purpose of revenging the wrong done the injured parly. When viewed in this light it will be seen that it did not merely lie with Mr Horner to say that he was satisfied ; the Court should have been satisfied that no offence had been committed against the public, and that the prosecuting solicitor declined to admit. The reason we have drawn attention to this is that the proceedings taken against Mr Beamish, and the result, instead of acting as a warning to others, will, in our opinion, have a contrary effect, inasmuch as the idea will have got abroad that a criminal is sate from the law' provided he makes restitution when detected.