Deposition

of a witness for the Crown examined before the committing justices may be given in evidence on the trial against the prisoner if the witness is dead, out of the colony, or too ill to travel. However, the deposition of a witness examined page 15 before such justices is admissible for the prisoner—that is, against the Crown, only if the witness is dead. Should he leave the colony, or be too unwell to attend the trial, his evidence is excluded. Why should this difference exist? It may be urged that a prisoner might induce a witness to leave the colony or feign illness. Is this likely? Is it not a fact that such a witness is certain to be cross-examined in the lower Court by an experienced person, whilst in many instances the witnesses for the prosecution are frequently not cross-examined with any rigour, and sometimes scarcely at all, by the accused. In Queensland, where the justices certify that the witness is unable to attend the trial, his deposition may be read, and the evidence of a witness about to quit the colony may be taken by consent of the Crown, and prisoner de bene esse.

The reforms in the law of evidence, even in