No Power to Re-Open Elsie Walker Inquest

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 753, 28 August 1929, Page 11

No Power to Re-Open Elsie Walker Inquest

MINISTER’S STATEMENT ANSWER TO QUESTION (The St'A’ S Parha nentary/ Reporter) PARLIAMENT BLDGS.. Tues. There is no power to reopen the Elsie Walker inquest, according to a statement made in the House of Representatives today by the Minister of Justice, the Hon. T. M. Wilford, in reply to an urgent question asked by Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Grey Lynn). “There is no power to reopen an inquest in New Zealand.” he explained. “It is true the Supreme Court has power, by way of certiorari to quash an inquisition and reopen an inquest, but the right of the Supreme Court to take such proceedings is limited to where an inquest lias been carried on illegally*. That is to say, where something illegal has happened. In the Old Country it is not so. There, there is a statutory law, and the High Court of Justice, on the application of the Attorney-General, may quash the finding of the original inquest. We have no law in this country to that effect, giving the right to reopen an inquest at any time when such a course is considered necessary or desirable in the interests of justice. “I can find only one instance of an inquest having been reopened in New Zealand, but when the vouchers for payment of expenses came in, they were ruled out on the ground that the inquest had been illegally reopened.”

REOPENING OF INQUEST

POWER SHOULD BE PROVIDED UNSATISFACTORY POSITION "In the interests of justice it certainly seems desirable that there should be machinery for reopening an inquest if deemed necessary,” said an Auckland barrister to whom the latest development in the Elsie Walker case was referred to this morning. He said the statement made by the Minister of Justice to the effect that Ihere was no power to reopen an inquest was not unexpected, considerable doubt on this point having previously been expressed. However, the statement has made public a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and lie thought that steps should be taken to have a bill put through providing for such a contingency. Apart altogether from the present case he remarked that cases might arise where very material evidence might be discovered after the inquest was concluded. It was ridiculous to think that such evidence could not he heard. In tlie present case, apart front the possibility of clearing up a mystery, it' it was a fact that there was further evidence, as has been suggested, it should be heard if only in justice to those concerned. The Minister’s reference to the only instance in New Zealand where an inquest had been reopened probably refers to the Smallfield case, stated another barrister. In this case an inquest was held by the coroner and evidence was received in reference to Smallfield's death. The question was raised whether he had drowned himself or had taken poison. Afterward a second inquest was held, the body being exhumed, and at the second inquest the same verdict was come to by the coroner. On this inquest hung a claim for £IO,OOO insurance. If a bill was introduced to provide power to reopen inquests he considered that in all possibility it would be made retrospective. Whether the Walker inquest would then be reopened would depend entirely upon whether in the opinion of the Attor-ney-General there was further evidence to warrant that course.