The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 78

Cleared at Last. — Chapter I. — "Not Guilty," But——

Cleared at Last.

Chapter I.

"Not Guilty," But——

The Object of the Commission.

On the almost unsupported evidence of a hired informer named William Lambert, John James Meikle was, on the 17th December, 1887, convicted of sheep-stealing in the Supreme-Court at Invercargill, and the cruel sentence of seven years' imprisonment with hard labour was awarded to a man who had nothing previously against him but a trivial conviction for common assault. On 17th June, 1895, having served his term Mr. Meikle turned the tables upon his accuser and secured Lambert's conviction for perjury in respect of the evidence given for the Crown in 1887. Claiming to have there-by established his own innocence, Mr. Meikle at once petitioned Parliament for redress, and on the 9th October, 1895, the Public Petitions Committee of the House of Representatives reported in his favour as follows:—

"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.

The Committee are also of opinion that the request of petitioner to have his name removed from the prison record's of the Colony merits the serious consideration of the Crown.

The Committee recommends the Government to make provision on the Supplementary Estimates for the payment to petitioner of a sum of money by way of compensation for the loss he has sustained in connection with his business, the legal costs incurred in defending the charge preferred against him, and securing the conviction of Lambert for perjury, and also by way of compensation for the imprisonment he has suffered."

Mr. Seddon's Government, however, refused to give effect to this recommendation on the ground that in his report on the petition which Mr, Meikle had addressed to the Governor from prison, Mr. Justice Ward, who had tried the case, had expressed his entire concurrence in the verdict, and that even the conviction of-Lambert he had declined to admit Mr. Meikle's right to an acquittal. For ten years the petitioner battled to reverse this decision, but Mr. Seddon refused to page 6 accept the recommendation of a Parliamentary Committee as a sufficient warrant for the practical overruling of a verdict recorded according to law and supported by the judge at trial. At last, however, the growing power of public sympathy and indignation made the deadlock intolerable, and yielding to the request of an influential deputation appointed by a public meeting of Wellington citizens, the late Government wisely decided to get an authoritative judicial ruling on the value of the judicial barrier to the granting of the Petitions Committee's recommendations which they had hitherto regarded as insuperable.

"Not Guilty."

A Royal Commission, composed of two Supreme Court Judges, was accordingly appointed on the 15th March, 1906, to review the whole matter of both trials and to report up the merits of Mr. Meikle's claim that he had been wrongfully convicted, and was entitled to compensation. The Commissioners were Mr. Justice Edwards and Mr. Justice Cooper, who after hearing evidence and argument at great length Dunedin in May, 1906, and at Wellington in January, 1997 sent in a report which is now before Parliament. The extraordinary nature of that report and the fact that Parliament must act upon it during the present session combine to render this publication necessary. The object of appointing the Commission was to secure an authoritative and decisive Pronouncement on the legal and moral issues involved, and to at rest for ever a question which had disturbed the peace of Parliament and the conscience of the public for many years and threatened to be absolutely interminable. If the Commissioners had been sitting as a jury and bound to announce their conclusion on the legal issue without stating reasons the result would have been that unhesitating verdict of "Not Guilty," which everybody who had studied the previous trials with any care knew to be inevitable. This is their only finding upon the facts:—

"Nevertheless, weighing the whole of the evidence as best can in circumstances so difficult, we are of opinion that the proceedings before us had been an actual re-trial of the claimant before a jury upon the charge of sheep-stealing (of which he was convicted in 1887) the evidence of his guilt is so far from conclusive that it would on such a re-trial have been proper to acquit the claimant upon that charge, and we should have so stated to the jury."

An Evasive Report.

But the Commission was appointed not merely to make up its own mind, but also to convince the public, and a bald verdict of "Not Guilty," pronounced on the events of twenty years ago, is obviously susceptible of all sorts of doubts and qualifications unfavourable to the accused. Yet, incredible as page 7 it may appear, the Commissioners have not given a single reason for their finding on what was really the fundamental issue of the case, and the only one with which they had any special competence to deal. For three weeks the Commission sat; the printed report of the proceedings extends to some 350 foolscap folio pages; and if the public which the Commission was appointed to enlighten desires to know the grounds of the decision, it must wrestle with this huge volume and guess at the process as best it may. On two points, and two points only, is the evidence touched at all; and these are points which have no direct relation to the alleged crime, and are introduced for the sole purpose of discrediting the accused, This deplorable failure on the part of the Commissioners, this refusal to reason where reasoning, in the jargon to which they are accustomed, was "of the essence of the contract," this omission of any analysis of the evidence upon the bearing of which public sympathy will inevitably turn, makes it necessary that somebody who is prepared to treat the matter more precisely than the Commissioners should attempt to supply what they have omitted.^* To spell a connected and rational story out of this colossal compilation, which the Commissiners have contemptuously flung in the face of Parliament and the public, will therefore be the aim of these pages.

In particular we shall endeavour to show:—

(1)	That the finding of "Not Guilty" is all that was needed to support the full extent of Mr. Meikle's claim for redress.
(2)	That any reasonable analysis of the evidence would suffice to carry conviction to the lay mind that the man is entitled not merely to an acquittal, but to an unconditional and ungrudging: declaration of his innocence.
(3)	That the legal pedantries which have prevented the Commissioners from arriving at any conclusion on the subject of compensation are not of a kind which should cause a moment's hesitation to a mind capable of weighing the issues from the standpoint of common-sense, human sympathy, and public honour.

^* The hypothesis of a difference of opinion between the Commissioners is the most charitable explanation of the barrenness of their report. The bald "Not Guilty" would then represent all that the commissioner less favourable to Meikle would agree to. But even so we should surely have been told how far his colleague would go, and what reasons each had to offer.

▼ About this page

Other formats

Connect

▼ Browse collection