Native’S Death.

Further Information in Larkin Case Shows Need for Revision of N.G.

Criminal Code.

IT will be remembered that the opinion has been expressed very emphatic ally by The Pacific Islands Monthly, that there should be a review of the verdict and sentence given by Judge Wanliss in the Larkin case, on the ground that the evidence showed that Larkin, in causing the death of a na tive in his employ, was guilty of man slaughter and not of murder.

In support of this view we quoted in the December issue, Webster’s definition of murder.

We have now received from a valued correspondent who writes us as a legal man, a copy of the Criminal Code of Queensland which has been adopted for use in the Mandated Territory; and it is pointed out that according to this code, the law in regard to murder in New Guinea is different in some re spects from that of England, New South Wales and other States. The Criminal Code of New Guinea, as amended by the Criminal Code Amend ment ordinance, reads as follows: 300. Any person who unlawfully kills another is guilty of a crime, which is called wilful murder, murder, or manslaughter, according to the circumstances of the case. 301. Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another, intending to cause his death or that of some other person, is guilty of wilful murder. 302 defines murder. 303 defines manslaughter. 305. — (1.) Any person who commits the crime of wilful murder shall be liable to the punish ment of death. (2). Any person who commits the crime of murder shall be liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life, with or without solitary confinement, and with or without whipping. 310. Any person who commits the crime of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life with or without whipping.

This is a different interpretation of murder, and partly justifies Judge Wan liss. But the punishment named is not expressly imposed on the criminal —he is only “liable” to it. The degree of criminality, and the severity of the punishment, are left, seemingly, to the discretion of the Judge. Which does not alter our emphatic opinion that, in imposing ten years’ hard labour on Larkin, Judge Wanliss inflicted a punishment that was cruel and un justifiable, and quite inconsistent with his other verdicts, and with the prac tices of his Court.

We suggest that experience has shown that there is urgent need for a revision of this code. There have been numerous cases involving the indus trial relationship between Europeans and natives wherein it has become necessary to punish Europeans for un necessarily severe handling of natives leading to their death.

Europeans must be punished for causing the death of a native; but it is obviously wrong to call such a crime murder where no intent to kill is dis closed; and to punish accordingly. In other words, in the peculiar circum stances existing in New Guinea, it is necessary to revise the code so that there will be the usual clear distinc

tion between murder and man slaughter.

There may be some justification for this arrangement of the criminal code in Queensland, which is a white man’s country; but there certainly is no such justification in New Guinea, where very peculiar conditions govern the re lationship between Europeans and natives. Earnest old gentlemen who know nothing of tropical conditions will argue, of course, that black life is just as sacred as white life. We need not pursue a very arguable subject.

The point is that it is necessary to provide a punishment to discourage a certain class of white man from brutally ill-treating natives; while, at the same time, we must see that the law is not employed to justify the savage sentence of ten years’ hard labour imposed upon Larkin for what was clearly an accidental killing.

Still Another Case.

Another case concerning the death of a native labourer has come under the notice of the P.I.M., the verdict in which is in sharp contrast with the Larkin case.

At the Central Court, Rabaul, recently, Aquelino Crestani was charged with the death of a native, Ambuna, whom he had employed. The Crown alleged that the accused kicked Ambuna several times and about ten minutes later Ambuna collapsed and died. It was alleged that death was due to rupture of the spleen caused by the violence of Crestani.

The case for the defence was that the accused kicked Ambuna once on the buttocks and that rupture of the spleen was not due to his violence. Three me dical practiitioners gave evidence.

On November 19, Crestani was found guilty of manslaughter. He was fined £20 with imprisonment till the fine is paid, but the period of imprisonment was not to exceed three months.