MAREO CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 193, 15 August 1936, Page 10

MAREO CASE.

COST TO THE STATE.

DEFENCE WITNESSES.

STATEMENTS ANSWERED.

MR. AEKINS IIXPIiAINS,

Statements made on Thursday.by Mr. F. 'W.'Schramm, M.P., in the IJouse of Representatives concerning the expense of bringing witnesses from Australia to give evidence in the trial of Eric Mareo were answered to-day by Mr. K. C. Aekins, one of the counsel for the defence at the trial. Mr. Schramm had expressed the opinion that the Crown had heen involved in a great deal of unnecessary expense, and had stated that the defence witnesses brought from Australia had given evidence which, if not 'relevant, was at least discredited. In his statement Mr. Aekins described the circumstances under which this evidence was called.

"On the second day of the first trial of the Supreme Court, a cable was received by the defence from Australia intimating that the sender could give valuable ■ evidence for the defence," explained Mr. Aekins. "By interchange of cables it was ascertained that this witness , could give evidence that he had seen the late Mrs. Mareo taking veronal when depressed. The period he spoke of was sonio years prior to., her marriage. "A cable was sent to him asking Jiim to give a statement to the Adelaide police, and to request them to forward it to the Auckland police. When lie interviewed the Commissioner of Police the authorities refused to embarrass the Auckland police without a request from them to investigate. Subsequently other letters were received by the defence from people in Australia, who stated that they could give evidence which would assist the defence should a second trial be granted. The whole of this correspondence was subsequently forwarded to the Minister of Justice, and in turn was sent to Australia, where the witnesses concerned were interviewed by the Australian police in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide, and copies of their statements were supplied to the Crown and subsequently to the defence in Xew Zealand.

1 Eight Witnesses Seen. "Although eight witnessed were interviewed in Australia, anil their statements forwarded to New Zealand. The whole of these witnesses could have been called by the defence, but as it was realised that that would involve considerable expense to the Government, only three *were asked to be called. It was considered that their evidence was the most important from -the defence point of view. "To say that the evidence was 'if not actually irrelevant, discredited and of no. value in the eyes of the law,' is not putting the matter fairly. The fullest possible investigations and inquiries were made by the Australian police concerning the witnesses and their characters and veracity.

Test of Relevancy.

"The fact that liis Honor accepted the' evidence relevant and that no objection by the Crown Prosecutor is £Ke only test of its relevancy in tfie eyes of the law. Whether the evidence was accepted or rejected by the jiiry is known only to them, as they are the only ones who know what goes on in the jury room.

"I made every possible endeavour to secure funds for the defence of Marco, And exhausted every avenue before the Crown was approached for assistance," concluded Mr. Aekins.