H.—-21

44

Home Department for a pariioii for the person supposed to have been wrongly convicted. This is one of the greatest defects in our whole system of criminal procedure. To pardon a man on the ground of his innocence is in itself, to say the least, an exceedingly clumsy mode of procedure." If it is a clumsy mode of procedure, I submit that it supports the whole of my contention. Then there is a passage from the report of the Criminal Code Commission (page 317): — " The powers of the Secretary of State, however, as to disposing of the cases which come before him are not as satisfactory as his power of inquiring into the circumstances. He can advise Her Majesty to remit or commute a sentence; but, to say nothing of the inconsistency of pardoning a man for an offence on the ground that he did not commit it, such a course may be unsatisfactory. The result of the inquiries of the Secretary of State may be to show, not that the convict is clearly innocent, but that the propriety of the conviction is doubtful; that matters were left out of account which ought to have been considered, or that too little importance was attached to a view of the case the bearing of which was not sufficiently apprehended at the trial— in short, the inquiry may show that the case is one on which the opinion of a second jury ought to be taken. If this is the view of the Secretary of State, he ought, we think, to have the right of directing a new trial on his own undivided responsibility." If it were to be a pardon there is no doubt that the Legislature has ample power to do it. The only sort of legislative pardon that I can find in recent years was the pardon of Lord Bryon and another peer for having voted when they were disqualified, and it appears that they got a private indemnity Act. But that is a clear recognition of an undoubted power. However, as your Honours have put it, an Act might be passed with a preamble reciting the position, and if the report of the Commissioners is sufficiently favourable to my client to justify that, I am perfectly certain the Law Draftsman would have no difficulty in puttings enough into the preamble to meet the case. In conclusion, I desire to come back to the general principle of the moral responsibility of the colony for the miscarriage of justice, if miscarriage of tjustice is proved, and I will briefly sum up by saying that the deliberate wickedness of the tyrant who robs or tortures or imprisons is the execration of history; but in these days few tyrants have the opportunity of inflicting greater suffering upon their victims than have been heaped upon my client by the terrible miscairiage of justice now under investigation. A community whose law-courts have been the involuntary agents of this wrong is not going to put itself in the moral position of a tyrant, as it would by leaving things as they stand if the wrong be proved. Your Honours will surely appeal to its highest motives, and I do not fear the results.

Dunedin, Thursday, 3rd May, 1906. James White Kelly examined. 1. Mr. Atkinson.] You are a tailor carrying on business in Gore?— Yes. 2. You were formerly a member of the House of Representatives for Invercargill?—Yes. 3. And you were foreman of the jury which found Meikle guilty in 1887 of sheep-stealing?— I was. 4. You gave evidence in the prosecution of William Lambert for perjury in respect to evidence which he gave on the trial of Meikle?—Yes. 5. Let me read His Honour's notes of your evidence —it is a long while ago —if you will just listen and say whether these statements are correct: "James White Kelly, M.H.R., Invercargill: I remember sitting on a common jury to try indictment against Meikle in 1887. I was foreman of jury. I remember prisoner giving evidence. I heard him speak as to meeting Arthur Meikle on a certain date driving sheep. The date Lambert spoke to all through his evidence was the Nth October, 1887. I could not say, speaking from memory, what he said. He spoke as to seeing Arthur Meikle driving sheep that night. Speaking from memory, he said they were driven on to Meikle's property. He said they were the prosecuting company's sheep. He said the father met' them there. lam not sure whether it was on that particular occasion that one or more were killed. He pressed as to the date by counsel for the prisoner. He stuck to date all through his evidence. Cross-examined: I think it was both in his examination and cross-examination he stuck to the date —Nth. I don't think anything was mentioned about Nth in Supreme Court. I believe Meikle was charged with stealing twenty-seven sheep. I have seen an indictment and refreshed my memory. I could swear to the date before I saw the indictment. I saw indictment before I gave evidence in Court below. I remember about date, but not about number of sheep he was charged with stealing. I think two other witnesses spoke pretty close to Nth. Gregg was one. I think Gregg mentioned Lambert being at his hut on that date. I think Gregg was positive also as to date. Re-examined: lam confident that Lambert made use of a note at the trial." Is that a correct record so far as you recollect of the evidence you gave?— Yes. 6. Do you wish to make any alterations in that statement? —No. 7. These statements are true?— Yes. 8. You were a member of Parliament during what years?— For nine years. The first election was, I think, in 1889. 9. There were various petitions from Meikle which came before the House when you were there?— Yes. 10. Did you present any of them, or have charge of any of them?—l took a leading part in connection with the petitions, but I-cannot say whether they were presented all by me. On several occasions there were petitions brought in from other people asking for an inquiry, and probably they were not presented by me. 11. You took a leading part in some parts of the proceedings: on what side were you moving?—On behalf of Mr. Meikle.