A WOMAN'S SILENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 February 1920, Page 5

A WOMAN'S SILENCE.

ANOMALY IN CRIMINAL CASE. A further development' in connection with the refusal of a witness in a cq.se at the criminal sessions to reply to a question from counsel for defence, occurred at the Supreme Court, Wellington, on Tuesday, when the hearing was resumed. The case was one in which James Reynolds Haynes and Norman Neylon stood indicted with the unlawful use of an instrument. Mr. MacGregor, of Dunedin, who prosecuted, said that he had decided to make application under section 431 of the Crimes Act to have the jury dismissed and the hearing postrioned. It. 1 was quite hopeless to expect the girl to give evidence. She had been carefully instructed by His Honor as to her position, and it seemed to be useless to go further with the case. He had to ask His Honor, in view of this turn of events, to. act under section 431 of the Crimes Act and discharge the present jury without their giving a verdict, and postpone the trial until the next criminal sessions at Wellington. Mr. Wilford said, that his client had come to the court' at great expense; he protested .that the jury should not be allowed to be discharged. If his learned friend's case had failed he must take the consequences. The accused had been tried before two juries at Dunedin, and both had failed to agree. A_ third trial had been then granted with a change of venue. There must be a limit to the right of the Crown to I take action against an individual. Mr. MacGregor submitted the emergency that had arisen justified him in making the application. The girl witness, who was an accomplice to the crime, had been warned by His Honor, but still refused to. speak. ' The section of the Act he had quoted was designed to meet such a case. The girl's refusal to give evidence, he submitted, was not for the purpose of protecting herself, but with the idea of screening one or the other, or both of the accused. She must have been carefully coached in taking up the stand she made. The only remedy he could see was to postpone the case and discharge the present jury. Mr. Wilford said that the Crown Prosecutor hadjitated that the girl appeared tc have Been well coached. He understood the jjirl had taken up the same attitude in the witness box in Dunedin, when she refused point-blank to speak at the second trial, and was ordered to stand down for an hour and a half. She then returned to the witness box and made a statement. The attitude she had now adopted was not a sudden resolve, and was evidently a course she had mapped out prior to coming to Wellington. Mr. Justice Edwards conferred for several minutes with Mr. Justice Stringer, and then said that in the matter he had to deal with ho. had to consider the ends of justice and the -fact that the girl had refused to give evidence. The witness had adopted her present attitude in the j interests of the prisoners. It would be j fatal to the administration of justice if it were possible for a witness to stand .mute in the box and thus endeavor to frustrate a trial. That position was quite impossible. The new trial was set down for May IT. . Bail was fixed in a recognisance by Haynes of £3OO and two sureties of £3OO each; and for Neylon in the sum of £2OO and two sureties of similar amounts(Section 431 of the Crimes Act provides that the Court "may. in case of any emergency .... rendering it in its opinion highly expedient for the ends of justice so to do, in its discretion discharge the jury without giving a verdict. . . .")