INSTITUTE FOR BLIND

Wairarapa Times-Age, 18 May 1938, Page 8

INSTITUTE FOR BLIND

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DIRECTOR DECISION .IN MAGISTRATE’S COURT. ACCUSED MAN TO STAND TRIAL. (By Telegraph—Press Association). AUCKLAND, May 17. On a number of charges of indecent assault on males, Clutha Nantes Mackenzie, director of the New Zealand Institute for the Blind, was committed by Mr C. R. Orr Walker, S.M., for trial in the Supreme Court. There were originally 16 charges, and on six of these the magistrate discharged accused. The case was heard in the Magistrates’ Court last Thursday and Friday. Mr A. H. Johnstone, K.C., with him Mr F. L. G. West, appeared for accused and Detective-Sergeant McHugh prosecuted. At the close of the hearing the magistrate reserved his decision uhtil he had heard legal argument to be submitted by Mr Johnstone. “This series of cases present a number of unusual and in many respects extraordinary features,” said Mr Johnstone. “Accused is a man of hitherto untarnished reputation, who for 15 years has held the position of director of the Institute for the Blind, and he is now brought before the court to answer 16 charges of having committed offences against persons who were at one time or are now inmates of the institution.” Three of these offences, Mr Johnstone said, were alleged to have taken place between four and five years ago, four in 1936, all more than 18 months ago, four in 1937, and three in the present year. “These dates in my submission are of very great importance,” said Mr Johnstone, “because it is quite impossible at this distance in time to answer charges which are so old and so stale. Who can say what he was doing on some date in 1933, or even later? On that ground alone all these ■ cases should be dismissed.”

Mr Johnstone quoted authority in support of this claim. Counsel further submitted that these charges were made in regard to isolated events. There was no practice proved in relation to any one person. What was alleged was that something in the nature of an examination was made upon some inmates of the institution either upon admission or in some few cases upon leaving. These examinations were not accompanied by any kind of complaint or remonstrance to any person in authority. The witnesses appeared for the most part at any rate not to have regarded what was done as acts of indecency, or indeed, even of impropriety. None of the charges was corroborated by any independent evidence. The proof itself, Mr Johnstone continued, was of the slenderest possible kind, given in many instances by persons who were mentally backward, if not actually deranged. No court would be justified in finding that a prima facie case had been made out in respect of a crime so grave, unless it was established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. He submitted that upon the evidence as it stood, without cross-examination or evidence in reply, it would not be proper or just to commit accused for trial.

Even assuming, which was not admitted, that the facts had been proved, there was no evidence that in the circumstances they were indecent. It had to be remembered that for a blind man seeking information touch very largely took the place of sight. Accused was the director and was responsible for the welfare of the inmates, most of whom were afflicted like himself. An act which might be prima facie indecent, because unnecessary, in the case of a sighted man was not necessarily so in the case of a blind man. The only object which accused could have had in making an examination was the obtaining of information to assist him in helping those under his care to become useful citi-

Counsel proceeded to criticise the evidence given by each of the police witnesses and submitted that there was not a chance in a thousand that a jury would convict.

“It is a pure waste of time to send this man to the Supreme Court for trial,” said Mr Johnstone, “and at the same time it involves much unnecessary pain and suffering to accused. I appeal to you, sir, to (dismiss the charges.”

Detective-Sergeant McHugh said each of the inmates on being admitted to the institute was examined by a doctor and there was a doctor in attendance there two or three times a week. This was not one isolated case but there were 16 different charges. Out of 16 witnesses only one was examined by Mr Johnstone and he was the only one of them on whose character any reflection could be cast. All the other witnesses were of unblemished character.

The magistrate said he would dismiss six charges in reference to four complainants. “In connection with the other charges,” he said, “I think it is my duty to commit accused for trial to the Supreme Court. He will be allowed bail at £3OO and one surety of £300.”