SUPREME COURT Evidence In Two Cases Outlined To Grand Jury

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27799, 26 October 1955, Page 11

SUPREME COURT Evidence In Two Cases Outlined To Grand Jury

You are ’this morning the representatives of this community and as such you serve as an important' link in the administration of justice,” said Mr Justice McGregor addressing the grand jury at the opening of the bupreme Court session yesterday. It was a principle of British justice that no accused person should be put on trial before a common jury unless the grand jury, as representatives of his fellows, considered the evidence sufficient to warrant that being done. It was gratifying for him to be able to tell them that, in this large comi munity, only two matters were to i come before them, though they were both of a serious nature, said his Honour. That did not mean an entire absence of crime, unfortunately; for in recent years Magistrates had been given extended jurisdiction and cases which previously required the attention of the Supreme Court could now be dealt with by the Magistrates. The first charges for their consideration were against an accused person named Clifford Fox. There were four charges, but the first three were alternatives, said his Honour. These charges were that on or about October 2 at New Brighton the accused broke and entered the countinghouse of Beath and Company, Ltd., and committed the crime of theft, that he stole the sum of £6ss—that was the money abstracted that night from the premises of Beath and Company, Ltd., ac- ■ cording to the evidence—and that he' received 16 £5 notes knowing them have been dishonestly obtained. The fourth charge was that on October 8 he escaped from lawful custody. The evidence was that the premises of Beath and Company were locked at 9.20 p.m. on October 1, said his Honour. About five minutes to midnight on the Sunday a constable on patrol noticed that a window pane near a fire escape was broken. He got in touch with. the manager, who returned to the shop and it was found that the premises had been broken into and the safe blown open, apparently by gelignite. A later check revealed that £655 was missing. “I think on that evidence it is perfectly- plain that the premises were broken into and the money stolen. But the more important is the evidence you might well think implicates the accused person in this crime,” said his Honour. About 9.30 p.m. on the Saturday two constables saw the accused's car parked in such a position that the premises of Beath and Company could be seen. The accused, his wife and a man named Wratten were sitting in the car. The car left about 10 p.m. At 10.30 p.m. the car was parked in the street where the accused lived, but on the opposite side from the house. At 1.50 a.m. the car was again seen parked in that street, but on the same side as the house. The lights were on in the house. The evidence of an employee of Beath and Company was that the accused was an the store on the Saturday afternoon. The police searched the accused’s house on October 3, but nothing implicating the accused was found. On the Saturday a number of saleswomen recorded the serial numbers of several £5 and £lO notes taken in the shop, said his Honour. That was done by taking the last three of the six figures in the serial number. One employee went a stage further and recorded all six figures. In a drawer in the safe were some refills for pens and they were all missing except one. The accused’s house was again searched on October 8 and he was questioned about money. He produced three bundles of money from a hiding place in a bedroom. One contained £B5 in £5 notes, another £65 in £5 notes and a third £l5 in £1 notes. It appeared that the man Wratten had been staying or boarding with the Accused for some days. The accused said that Wratten had owed a bookmaker £B5 and the bookmaker happened to owe the accused £65 and had paid him. The notes were checked by the police and in the £B5 bundle the serial number of four notes cor- ■ responded with those of notes missing from Beath and Company’s preihises, and in the £65 bundle the serial number of 12 notes corresponded with those of notes missing from Beath and Company’s premises. . A pen refill was also found.

It was for the grand jury to consider whether that evidence implicated the accused, said his Honour. Just inside the porch of the house the police saw a screwdriver and according to the police evidence the end of it fitted perfectly into indentations in the door jamb of the office in Beath and Company’s premises. They might well think, for their purposes, that the evidence on the money and the screwdriver implicated the accused in this crime in some way. “I suggest to you that you will have no difficulty in finding a true bill on each of these three charges and that it is a matter properly to be considered by the common jury,” said his Honour. The fourth charge related to October 8. It was a perfectly simple case. The accused was formally placed under arrest at his house and charged with the crime of breaking and entering. He made some excuse to leave the room and suddenly bolted. He got out of the house and disappeared. Some two hours later he was found hiding under an eiderdown in somebody else’s house about three-quarters of a mile away. His Honour suggested they might consider it a case for returning a true bill. “Unique Circumstances”

The charges against a man named Richard Stanley Wratten arose out of unique circumstances, said his Honour. Wratten was charged with breaking and entering the Amberley Supply Stores with intent to commit a crime, with having in his possession at night without lawful excuse instruments of housebreaking, gelignite detonators and fuse, and with depositing in the left luggage department of the Christchurch railway station a suitcase containing goods of a dangerous nature—gelignite and detonators—without giving notice to the officer in charge of the station. On October 7, a Friday night, the property of the Amberley Supply Stores was locked up at 9.30 p.m. The

circumstances were unique in this respect—the proprietor, a Mr England, gave the keys to Constable Paddy and authorised him to go into the premises, said his Honour. At 10 p.m., Constable Paddy and Detective-Sergeant Tate secreted themselves in the premises. At 10.20 p.m. they heard two bangs on the door. Nothing happened for another five minutes and then a man in a light overcoat came along and broke the glass in the door. There was another gap of five minutes and the man in the light overcoat came back and began picking up the broken pieces of glass, and putting them in the shop. DetectiveSergeant Ward, who was outside, pounced on the gentleman in the light overcoat. The gentleman turned out to be Wratten. He was searched and in his possession were found gelignite, detonators, fuse, and a knitting needle. “A knitting needle, I understand, is sometimes used for tamping gelignite into the keyhole of a lock,” said his Honour. If the grand jury accepted that evidence they might think it was for the common jury to consider if

the full offence of breaking and entering was not complete or whether an attempt was not made. The grand jury would readily understand that gelignite, detonators and fuse found in a box in the accused’s possession were instruments of housebreaking.

The third change against Wratten concerned an allied but somewhat separate matter, said his Honour. The Railways Act created an offence where any person deposited goods of a dangerous nature without clearly marking the package and notifying the officer in charge of the railway station. A left luggage ticket was found in Wratten’s possession. A police officer took it to the left luggage office at the Christchurch railway station and obtained a package containing nine sticks of gelignite and 17 detonators. “I need hardly tell you that they are dangerous goods,” said his Honour. “On all the three charges I suggest you will have no difficulty in finding a true bill.”

Functions and Privileges There was another function and privilege which the grand jury had as representatives of the community, said his Honour. Any matters affecting the administration of justice generally were matters they could bring before him and it would be his duty to have them brought before the proper authorities. The grand jury returned true bills on all counts in each case.

The foreman told his Honour that a question had been asked whether the police were satisfied with the control and selling of explosives. His Honour said this was a very proper matter and he would have inquiries made about whether there could or should be a better method for the control of explosives.