From the Courts

by Bernard Randall

Last Thursday in the No 1 Supreme Court in Wellington a middle aged man appeared before Mr Justice Cooke, charged with murder, During the trial the 175 spectators consisting mainly of law students ignored the possibility of contempt of court and hissed and booed when either the judge or prosecutor made prejudicial comments about the accused. Were the law students heeding the call of direct action to change the legal system? Unfortunately no. It was merely the annual moot of the Law Faculty. On trial was Othello who was accused of murdering his wife Desdemona.

Prosecuting for the Crown was Messrs R.A. Moodie and A. A. T, Ellis. Appearing for the accused was Professor D.B. Inglis and the Dean Mr J.C. Thomas. The trial was heard before Mr Justice Cooke and a jury of 22 senior law students. This large number for the jury was seen as compensating in some meagre way for the usual 12 reasonable men who normally form the jury.

In his opening address to the jury Mr Justice Cooke told them that in the tedious repetition they were about to hear they could be thankful that they did not have to put up with it every day. Mr Moodie opened the case for the Crown and stated the reason for Othello killing Desdemona was vengence. He proceeded to describe Othello as an extreme egotist, psychopath, inward-looking, impulsive and insensitive. Having exhausted Roget's Thesaurus he summed it up by saying that Othello may have been an epileptic. The cross-examination of Ray Henwood reached its crescendo when Prof. Inglis asked the witness "I epilepsy is not a disease what is it?"—to which Hen wood replied "A very good question!"

The case for the defence was opened by the Dean Mr J. Thomas who pointed out to the jury that in "the cool of the court' the real circumstances surrounding the case could not be appreciated. He then proceeded to lay some emotional importance on a handkerchief belonging to Othello's mother. Mr Thomas sought to prove that the defence of insanity and provocation were available to the accused, one and a half hours later the jury, no longer resembling their earlier pose of being alert and observant, were addressed by Mr Justice Cooke. He told them that he invariably gives an indication to the jury of his views as to the verdict but that they generally disregard them The jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.

For many of the law students present it was their first time in the Supreme Court, How can law students become aware of the injustices in the criminal trials if they seldom attend the supreme or magistrates courts? Unless law students attend the court regularly they will be oblivious to the injustices of the legal system which in their studies they perpetuate.