[“The Aborigines Question”, The West Australian, Friday 17 February 1905, pages 2-3]

...

Richard Henry Wace. Resident Magistrate and District Medical Officer, Derby.

...

Have you had any experience in dealing with cases of cattle-killing on the Bench ?—— Yes.

Is it a fact that in almost all cases the accused pleads guilty?—— In all cases but two since I have been here the accased have pleaded guilty. I am now altering the procedure, and I do not hear these cases under the Criminal Code Amendment Act. In the last case that came before me I told the police that in future I would expect in all cases where aboriginals were charged with offences against whites, the aggrieved party himself to prosecute in person, and that where such cases were of the nature that the Criminal Code was amended to cover. on the ground of expense. I would endeavour to hold special sessions for them. The two cases I mentioned previously, where the accused pleaded “Not guilty,” were remanded to Quarter Sessions on 13th August, 1004, and were withdrawn, on the application of the corporal of police, on account of the expense of keeping witnesses.

As a rule, are these prisoners charged conjointly or separately?—— The charge is made conjointly and individually. The charge is “that they did, each and all of them.”

What is the largest number of blacks that have appeared before you on the one charge?—— I think 10 is the largest number I have had together. I think they would average six or seven on a charge.

Has it ever struck you as somewhat strange that so many blacks should be in one batch on the same charge?—— No. The charge has generally included that of eating the bullock, an offence analogous to stealing. They were practically accessories after the fact if they had not killed the beast.

Who usually prosecutes in these cases?—— The police have hitherto.

Why does not the manager or owner of the station whence the beast is alleged to have been killed prosecute?—— I do not know. I have asked that they be here in future.

Have you ever asked why the manager or owner was not there to prosecute? I know the answer. The answer is that the custom of the court has been to take the police prosecution.

Do you ask the accused how he pleads?—— Each person is individually asked whether he killed the animal or not.

Through an interpreter?—— Yes.

Who is the interpreter?—— The police boy, or anyone else that may be sworn or affirmed for that purpose.

How can you guard against the police boy or other interpreter telling you a lie?—— The only guard is that the man is affirmed.

Does this police boy speak the language of the accused, or dloes he speak through another interpreter?—— He speaks through another interpreter in this Court.

With regard to asking the accused how he pleads, please tell me what is the exact form in which you put your question when talking to the interpreter?—— The way I ask the questin is, “Ask that man (pointing to the accused, and mentioning his name), if he killed the bullock.”

Do you take any particular care to describe any particular bullock—-whether the bullock was killed months ago, or only recently?—— I do not think myself that there is any doubt in the minds of the blacks as to which bullock is killed, and for which they are being tried. Of course, if the man plead not guilty, proof of the ownership of the bullock would not, in my opinion, be essential.

Because the accused happens to admit that he has killed the beast, do you take such an answer to mean that he proposes to plead guilty?—— Yes; if the black has answered my question the way I put it to him. I tell him the police say he killed such and such a bullock at such and such a place. I put the question to the boy, “Did you kill the beast?” If he says he killed the beast which the police say he killed, I take it as a plea of guilty. As Protector of Aborigines, I consider that I am not supposed to accept a plea of guilty from a blackfellow. In fact, I have objected to the question being put to the black to show cause why he should not be committed for the particular offence for by the time it is explained he usually regards it as an opportunity to admit the offence. In this particular procedure before us there is an Act of Parliament to direct that the question be put whether he has killed or not killed. If a black commits the offence he will plead guilty, and I mean by pleading guilty admitting the offence. Personally, I do not think the question should be put. I am forced, however, to do this when dealing with the case under the Criminal Code Amendment Act. I have noticed on the warrants of aborigines who have been sentenced by you that they have all pleaded guilty to the one and same offence but some have received longer sentences than others.

Can you give me some explanation of this?—— I always warn a black, when passing sentence, that in the event of his again committing the same offence he will get a longer sentence. If the black comes before me again for the same offence he will get a larger sentence. When a young boy comes into court I prefer to give a small sentence and find him an employer. I only remember one case of a young boy. His name was Mandamah.

Do you believe that these wild blacks can be made to understand the scope and meaning of the terms “pleading guilty” or “intent”?—— I do not consider that either of those phrases is essential either to the procedure or to the crime. I do not, however, think that a blackfellow would understand that the essence of that crime was the intent to steal.

This Commission has been informed that in the majority of cases the witnesses for the prosecution are young women. Is that so?—— Yes.

Have you noticed in these cases that the women are never charged with killing cattle or stealing beef?—— I have.

Are you aware that these female witnesses are really unwilling witnesses? No; I should think it was hardly probable that they were. They give their evidence willingly enough in court.

Do you inquire whether these female witnesses are the wives of the accused, so as to caution them about giving evidence against their husbands’ interests, as in the case of white women?—— I always understood that they were not the wives of the accused. I have never directly given the caution.

This Commission has been informed that these females are equally as guilty as far as stealing the meat is concerned, and that they are asked to turn informers. Did you know this?—— They appear here always as King’s evidence for the purpose of escaping punishment for their misdeeds.

Have you not felt often, in dealing with these cases, that there is something of an undercurrent of injustice meted out to the natives in the way that they have been brought in without defence, and without the opportunity of calling witnesses?—— The whole thing is covered by the fact of their pleading guity.

Do you believe in trying aborigines for tribal murder?—— If the law of the country says that they must be punished for murder I can do nothing else. I think that there should be special laws and procedure in the case of blacks. A justice cannot do more than administer the law as it is.

Do the police bring the blacks into the court properly dressed?—— The gins are always decently dressed, and the men wear loin cloths only. I consider it perfectly reasonable clothing for this climate.

Have you ever received a Supreme Court commission to try a case which you have dealt with previously in the Police Court ?—— I have sat as Supreme Court Commissioner in a case which I had previously committed for trial.

Does this not tend to put you in a very unenviable position?—— No. I commit on prima-facie evidence, which often would be insufficient to bring home a crime.

How do you like the position as Supreme Court Commissioner in dealing with cases where the prisoner’s life is concerned?—— I would dislike that very much.

...

AB notes:

One astonishing answer from Wace:

Would the same evidence . . . convict a white man under the same circumstances?—— Yes, if he pleaded guilty.