The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 78
Chapter X. — The Measure of Redress
Chapter X.
The Measure of Redress.
The Petitions Committee Justified.
1. | 1887.—Meikle convicted on Lambert's evidence. |
2. | 1895.—Lambert convicted of perjury in respect of that evidence. |
3. | 1907.—Meikle found "Not Guilty" by the Commissioners, and recommended for the grant of a free pardon or the quashing of his conviction. |
4. | 1907.—Lambert's conviction untouched by the Commissioners, though they ruled at the opening that he was equally on his trial with Meikle. |
"That the Committee are of opinion that, after eliminating Lambert's evidence, who has since been convicted and is now serving a sentence for perjury, there was not sufficient evidence adduced at petitioner's trial to warrant his conviction on the charge preferred against him."
As it has been pointed out, the finding of the Commissioners rather more emphatic than a verdict of "Not Guilty," since they say not only that "it would on such a retrial have been proper to acquit the claimant," but also that "'we should have so stated to the jury." Thus the fundamental and only disputed finding of the Petitions Committee is more than justified; and it follows that the recommendations which they based upon it must be carried out.
Ignoring the Report.
To the credit of the Commissioners be it said that they definite in their recommendation that "the claimant," as they love to call him, should be cleared of the criminal stigma. They propose that either a free pardon should be granted to Meikle-it is surely time that the farce of pardoning people page 36 whose pardon we should be asking for wrongly convicting them was abolished—or that, as suggested by the Adolph Beck Committee, "the simpler remedy should be Adopted of quashing the conviction on motion by the Attorney-General and entering an acquittal as of record." For the latter course legislation would be necessary, and "such legislation should be general in its terms," say the Commissioners," and should by no means be limited to the case of the claimant. It is impossible to resist a smile on seeing Ministers and Parliament engaged with a Meikle Acquittal Bill by way of currying out this emphatic recommendation of a general measure That the rest of the Commissioners' report will be ignore goes without saying, for nothing else could be done with it by a people of common-sense and self-respect. Recommendations, indeed, there are none on the subject of compensation for they have not yet made up their minds whether such a right exists in any case where neither misconduct nontechnical error can be imputed to a Judge, policeman, or other official. If they have not convinced themselves by their pages of see-saw reasoning on the subject, they certainly will not either convince or unsettle anybody else. It is positively ludicrous to see the learned Commissioners grappling labouriously, but vainly, with a simple moral issue by means of this forensic casuistry which is so dear to the heart of the lawyer so cramping to his intellect, and so paralysing to his conscience.
"Bounty" or Justice?
"Nobody but a lawyer will see any sense in the theory that recompense should be granted where the Judge has misinterpreted the law, and refused where he and the jury between them have misinterpreted the evidence by giving credence to a perjurer. In neither case has the injured man any legal redress, but the moral obligation of the State seems equally clear in both cases. In both cases the State, through its instruments, has unwittingly inflicted a wrong, and legal hair-splitting will satisfy the public conscience that can shirk responsibility in one case any more than in the other. And in both, with all deference to the Commissioners, the appeal is not to 'bounty,' but to justice."-Evening Post," 11th April, 1907.
We may add that, as Mr. Justice Edwards was duly reminded during the argument—(C. 34-5)—Mr. Meikle's claim twelve years ago and now is in precisely the same position as that of a Supreme Court Judge who, having been removed from the Bench owing to a technical flaw in his appointment, petitions Parliament for redress. In each case the appeal is not to "bounty "or charity, but to the justice and the, honour of the country, and Parliament is certainly not going to make any distinction between the cases on the ground that in the one a judge was the victim and in the other a party to the wrong.
How the £500 was paid.
"Of his own motion, and for the purpose of helping himself, Meikle had brought to justice a perjurer, which action had cost him a sum of money, and the Government was asked to compensate him and to recoup his expenses in connection with that prosecution. . . . .
"The Judge still said he was satisfied that Meikle was guilty. Now a Government was not worthy of the name of a Government, or to be trusted to exercise the functions of government if, having referred a case to a Judge who had tried it, and the Judge reported upon the case, and if it was again referred and he repeated that he was still satisfied of the guilt of the man, they then said that, notwithstanding that because a Committee had reported two years ago that the man was entitled to some consideration, they would set aside and ignore the Judge's opinion."—"Hansard," Vol. 100, P. 275.
"A Touch of Human Sympathy."
"Is money paid as to a sheep-stealer for convicting a perjurer to cover the claim of the recipient to redress in respect of the charge of sheep-stealing, of which he is subsequently proved to be innocent, whatever the unfortunate man may have signed' in the meantime ? 'Claim' is, however, an ambiguous word, which lends itself readily to the litigious analogies of the Commissioners. Honour does not look primarily to the merits of the claim or of the claimant but to what is due to itself. The country owes it to itself to do something to right this man, and we do not believe that its conscience will be easy or its reputation clear until it has done so. Not forensic logic-chopping, but a touch of human sympathy and a chivalrous conception of public honour, are needed to settle the question, and the good feeling of the country will supply what may be sought in vain among the dry bones of this report."—"Evening Post," 20th April, 1907.
This is surely a point of view which will make a more effective appeal to any man with a heart than the nicely balanced doubts of the Commissioners. Mr. Meikle himself is cleared by their verdict after waiting for nearly twenty years, but the country's reputation will not be cleared unless it hastens to make what amends it can at this late hour for an irreparable wrong. After the sympathetic and kindly words of the Premier to the deputation which waited on him on the 25 th July some compensation is inevitable. For the credit of the country try, let it be handsome and handsomely given—" not grudgingly or of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver." For twenty years we, the people of this Colony, through the blundering of our Courts—for which, whatever the Commissions may say, we cannot honourably disclaim responsibility—have made the life of this brave old man a hell upon earth. Are we now to add to this involuntary wrong the disgrace of deliberate meanness and hardened cruelty by staying to haggle about the measure of redress ?
Printed at the Evening Post Office, Willis Street, Wellington.—20012.