SOLICITORS’ METHODS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 193, 4 November 1927, Page 14

SOLICITORS’ METHODS

SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE

PETITION TO PARLIAMENT (THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Thursday, Amendment to the New Zealand LawPractitioners Act to enable recovery of damages against solicitors guilty of suppressing evidence in court is urged in a petition presented to Parliament to-day by Sir John Luke, Wellington North, on behalf of Muriel Lavington Glyde, principal of a private coaching school in Wellington. It Is stated in the petition that the Act contains no provisions against the forcible suppression of evidence, and suggests that while a lawyer may have the right to exercise his judgment as to the presentation or withholding of evidence in court, he shoLild assume full responsibility and should apply for a rehearing, or appeal if his judgment miscarries. Petitioner urges that refusal to make such an application should be held to be a misdemeanour, and that no lawyer should refuse to take action against a brother practitioner for suppressing evidence. If on the full presentation of evidence it could be proved that a case would have succeeded, it is claimed defendant should be held guilty of professional incompetence, criminal negligence, or bribery and corruption, and should be struck off the roll and injured. A client should be entitled to recover from him or the Law Society damages up to £I,OOO.