Rehearing Of Fraud Charges Refused

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28753, 26 November 1958, Page 7

Rehearing Of Fraud Charges Refused

Neto Zealand Press Associution)

ROTORUA. Nov. 25. An application by Mr P. A. Williams, of Auckland, for a rehearing of the trial of Noel Raymond Tuohy who was sentenced to four and a half years’ gaol in 1957 on charges of false pretences was disallowed by Mr W. H. Freeman. S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court today. The Magistrate said that, in his opinion, the application was on behalf of a man vzho was disgruntled since being sentenced and was now attempting to besmirch the character of his counsel. In his application, Mr Williams alleged that Tuohy’s previous counsel, Mr R. A. Potter, of Rotorua, was involved in the used car transactions, which led to the original prosecutions, to such a degree that he was not in a position to bring to light all mitigating factors. Tuohy had also been wrongly advised to plead guilty. There had been a possible miscarriage of justice, said Mr Williams. in that a gaol sentence, rather than a fine, had been imposed. Some vital evidence had not been brought before the Court. Appeal “Muddled About” The delay in the proceedings for a rehearing was no fault of Tuohy, for after he had been sentenced he had had no recourse to appeal in the Supreme Court. The people who had been asked to arrange the appeal had “muddled about” to such an extent that it had been ineffective, and a later appeal lodged by Tuohy himself had not been allowed because it was outside the statute time allowance. Tuohy was in a difficult position. as he could not obtain legal redress, Mr Williams said, and it was to his credit that he persisted in efforts to secure help. No fewer than six lawyers had called on Tuohy, but they had withdrawn on learning that other lawyers and financiers were involved. There was also the fact that Tuohy did not have any great wealth. “The delay in these proceedings is not too long, for there is the case of the Rotorua police delaying charges against Roy Lyme until quite recently,” Mr Williams added. (Lyme was sentenced to two years’ gaol for participation in illegal transactions involving Tuohy and the sale of used cars.) “Tuohy had pleaded guilty to 165 charges of false pretences, including one of theft.” counsel said. The Magistrate: Account was taken of all the charges when he was sentenced. “I submit that Tuohy was not guilty of all the charges brought against him,” Mr Williams said. The Magistrate: He pleaded guilty, not through his counsel but at my invitation. I did this because of the severity and number of the charges. “The amounts claimed against Tuohy were exaggerated, and there were other important factors which were not disclosed at the trial,” Mr Williams said. “As for the theft charge, I have an independent witness who will say that Tuohy was not the man who “On the question of why Tuohy pleaded guilty, it was that he

stole the satchel and documents, and that man knows it.

was wrongly advised to do so, said Mr Williams.

"A company was formed by Tuohy for lending finance at a high rate of interest. There were three shareholders, Messrs Tuohy, Potter and L. A. McKoy (the chief clerk). Also there were two directors, Messrs Tuohy and Potter. “Mr Potter was involved to such an extent that it was advisable for him to advise Tuohy to plead guilty, in order that investigations were not too careful," Mr Williams said.

"There is an apparent miscarriage of justice in that all the available exculpating evidence was not called and the full facts were, not brought out. Tuohy is now a broken man in gaol and without friends or the means of fighting back. This application is merely an effort to see that justice is done.” Mr Williams said.

The police had not deliberately refrained from prosecuting Lyme, said Senior Detective-Sergeant W. H. A. Sharp, appearing for the police. Tuohy had denied that others were involved when arrested in 1957. and he had no explanation to make as to how the money was being used. I “Some two months ago, I received a letter fronuJuohy which expressed surprise tnat Lyme had not been charged with similar offences.” said Senior DetectiveSergeant Sharp. “Tuohy was interviewed at Auckland, as was Lyme at Rotorua. This, 1 submit, is an admission by Tuohy that he was guilty of at least 47 charges, because he named an accomplice in an illegal act.” Invitation Declined

The Magistrate said that Mr Potter could answer the allegations made against him either from the floor of the Court, or as a witness. Mx- Potter did not ask leave to address the Court. “I know this case fairly well.” said the Magistrate, “and I know that the man concerned <Tuohy) appealed, and after it was withdrawn he appealed by himself. "It my appear to some, and in fact it does so to me, that here we have a disgruntled man who is now trying to involve others and who is attempting to besmirch the character of his counsel.

“I am not prepared tq order a rehearing, and I do not know if there is a way of going to the Supreme Court. At any rate, I am definitely opposed to granting the application."