The Sun.
London, England, 1829-01-29 00:00:00

CASE OF WILLIAM HARE

(Abridged from the Edinburgh Advertiser.)
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY.
In our last Paper we stated the proceedings which
had taken place before the Sheriff on the applicat ion
of William Hare to that Court by petition for libe-
ration which was refused. The case was now brought
before the Court of Justiciary by Bill of Advecation
and Suspension.
Mr. HUGH BRUCE appeared on behalf of Hare.
The facts on which the petition was grounded, he
said, were not disputed on the other side of the bar.
Upon the 24th December an individual, William
Burke, was placed at their Lordships' bar, accused
of three charges of murder; one of the charges ex-
hibited against Burke was that of the murder of James
Wilson, commonly called " Daft Jamie ;" and on
turning to the list of witnesses annexed to the in-
dictment, their Lordships would find the name of
the petitioner, William Hare. On the 19th Novem-
ber last, an application was presented by the Pro-
curator Fiscal for the county for a warrant to appre-
hend Hare; he was apprehended accordingly, and
examined as to the murders for which Burke was
afterwards indicted. Subsequently, the petitioner,
Hare, was assured by the Public Prosecutor, that
if he made a full disclosure of all that he knew in
regard to the alleged murders, he should receive
immunity in so far as he himself was concerned. He
accepted of the proffered immunity, and was ac-
cordingly examined as a witness on the trial of
Burke, and that without the caution or warning
usually given to a witness having no promise of im-
munity, to avoid stating any thing to criminate him-
self. Upon that trial he did make full disclosures,
under the assurance of personal and individual
safety. He was cited as a witness on all the three
cases, and although only called to speak on one of
these cases, the immunity given was absolute and
unconditional, and extended to the whole of the
charges. It was quite notorious that disclosures
were made by Hare to the Public Prosecutor, and,
in particular, it was known that disclosures were
made in relation to the murder of James Wil-
son. It is averred that, during all these pro-
ceedings neither of the private prosecutors (Janet
Wilson, alleged mother, or Janet Wilson, alleged
sister of James Wilson), came forward, or pre-
tended to come forward, and caution Hare as to
the evidence he was to disclose, because they in-
tended to turn that evidence against him. The ar-
gument on the other side of the bar was, that, not-
withstanding all the disclosures made by Hare, they
were still entitled to turn these disclosures against
him. He needed not to state, that it was the firm
conviction of the Public Prosecutor, that without
the evidence of Hare he had no case against Burke.
Having thus served the purpose of the Public Pro-
secutor, could he now be turned over to a Private
Prosecutor to he himself tried on these charges ? At
the time the Public Prosecutor gave him that immu-
nity he was held to be entitled to give, without the
assurance of such immunity Hare would not have
opened his mouth. The question now was, whether
the proceedings of the Public Prosecutor were suffi-
cient to quash those at the instance of the Private Pro-
secutor. The proposition of the Learned Counsel was,
that a socius being cited as a witness, acquires immu-
nity from all proceedings against him at the instance
of a Private Prosecutor, and this immunity he derives
from his being enclosed and called as a witness.
Was it to be said that because Hare had not been
examined on a particular charge, he was liable to be
tried on that charge ? He had done all that was re-
quired of him in regard to the case of Wilson, and
was entitled to immunity in that case. The ground
of objection to the evidence of a socius was that he
had an interest in the trial; but so soon as the law
allowed the admissibility of socii the objection ceased.
The veryact of the Public Prosecutor citing a socius
on a trial gave him absolute indemnity.
Mr. SANDFORD said, his Learned Friend had car-
ried the question of immunity much farther than he
was entitled to carry it. In regard to his first plea,
that of a promise given by the Public Prosecutor, he
held it to be law that the right of the private
party could not be compromised or taken from him
by any proceeding on the part of the Public Pro-
secutor. As yet, he did not know if Hare was a
socius crintinis in the atrocious murder they were
attempting to investigate. Was the Court then to
stretch forth its hand and extend mercy to this man ?
He would say that the Court had no authority for
going so far. If there was any compact in the
case, it was to the Crown he must apply—that was
the proper quarter. In conclusion, the Learned
Gentleman submitted that the Bill of Suspension
and Liberation ought to be refused, and that they
(the respondents) should be allowed to go on with
their case.
Mr. JEFFREY thought he might assume that the
title of the Private Prosecutor to call down the ven-
geance of the law could not be barred by any pre-
vious proeedure on the part of the Pablic Prose-
cutor. He knew but of two ways in which a socius
could be protected, and the ordinary course of jus-
tice impeded, and in both the concurrence of more
potent persons than the Public Prosecutor was ne-
cessary—in the one, the release of the party was ob-
tained by previous trial and acquittal of a jury; the
other was by pardon from the Crown, and the right
of a Private Prosecutor could not interfere with
either. The question seemed to be, whether the
Public Prosecutor held the royal prerogative of par-
don, or whether this Court held the royal preroga-
tive. He apprehended that in all the deliverances
of this Court, from 1788 down to the case of Burke,
nothing had occurred which could prevent a private
party from insisting upon bringing a sodas to trial.
If they had endeavoured to try Hare for the mur-
der of Docherty he would be entitled to immunity—
but in no case could the claim for immunity be
founded on previous procedure, but on the fact of
his having been examined in Court. The feelings
of humanity and propriety were the only things
which tied up the hands of the Public Prosecutor.
The Learned Counsel afterwards alluded to the
warning given to Hare to speak only to the murder
of Docherty—to the opinions of the Judges as to
the extent of protection which he was under--and
contended that the Court ought to dismiss the bill
of suspension, and that they be allowed to go on
with the precognition.
Mr. D. M`NEILL replied in support of the ob-
jection.
The COURT then shortly consulted, when
The LORD JUSTICE CLERK stated the course their
Lordships meant to adopt in this case. In the first
place, they intended to make intimation to the Lord
Advocate, and to ask whether his Lordship meant
to make any answer to this bill; and as the Court
wished to decide the question in the gravest manner,
they required informations, and that these should be
lodged in a much shorter time than usual. It was
ultimately agreed that the informations should be
given in by Saturday.
Mr. M`NEILL then called the attention of the
Court to an intimation in the Courant of that day,
stating that on Thursday they would publish a full
confession or declaration of Burke, of all the mur-
ders which he had committed or been accessary to,
which would of course apply to the case now tinder
consideration. He therefore craved their Lordships
to grant an interdict against such publication.
After some remarks by Lord GILLIES, the LORD
JUSTICE CLERK, and Lord 11EADOWUANK, an order
was. issued, that nothing relative to the murder of
James Wilson should be published until the pro-
, ceedings now pending in that case are concluded.

Sir Stewart Bruce, Bart., retains his office of
Master of the Ceremonies. Sir G. Rich retains that of
Chamberlain ; and Colonel Gore also continues in his
office. Statesman.