Supreme Court JUDGE DIRECTS JURY TO ACQUIT ACCUSED

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28823, 18 February 1959, Page 15

Supreme Court JUDGE DIRECTS JURY TO ACQUIT ACCUSED

A man facing three alternative charges of breaking and entering, stealing and receiving was acquitted by a July in the Supreme Court yesterday without any evidence being called, on submissions made in his defence. The accused, Lionel Frederick Timmings, aged 28 (Mr G. S. Brockett) was on trial on charges of breaking and entering the premises of Truck Exchange, Ltd., Blenheim road, on November 13. committing theft, or alternatively stealing or receiving an acetylene regulator valued at £8 Ils. At the completion of the Crown evidence Mr Justice Adams told the jury that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction on any of the counts in the indictment. He directed the juiw to return a verdict of not guilty. The premises of Truck Exchange, Ltd., were broken into on the night of November 12-13, and the next morning it was discovered that a complete set of welding equipment was missing, said the Crown Prosecutor (Mr C. N. Roper) in his opening address.

That morning the equipment was found next door at the Blenheim Road Garage, which had also been broken into. A floor safe had been cut open, presumably with the welding plant. It was found that an acetylene regulator was missing from the equipment. This regulator was found on December 16 in a shed at a garage in Moule street, Addington, where Timmings and another man were in partnership as panel beaters and spray painters, Mr Roper added. On December 16 accused admitted to the police that he had used the equipment at the Blenheim Road Garage to cut open a floor safe. The equipment bad been set' up for him by some other men and he had done.the actual

cutting “like a specialist sturgeon;” When he finished he was taken outside to a waiting car and driven home. Timmings had stated that he did not know what happened to the equipment. Interviewed on December 16 accused had denied breaking into Truck Exchange, Ltd., but admitted using the welding equipment found at the Blenheim Road Garage, said Detective Constable P. R. Callanan. When the premises at Moule street were searched a cardboard box containing two regulators was found; one of them bore the serial number of the regulator missing from Truck Exchange, Ltd.

In a statement produced at the request of the accused, he said that on the night of November 12 he was at home in bed when a man called and asked him to do a small job. He went with the man in a car and on the way was told that the'Blenheim Road Garage had already been entered, but attempts to open a floor safe had failed. When they got inside the building he had opened the safe and was paid £3O. He did not know how the regulator got on the premises at Moule street. Accused would not disclose the names of the other men involved as he was well-known and did not want to be thought a “telltale.”

At the completion of the Crown evidence the Court was adjourned while counsel conferred with his Honour. When the Court resumed his Honour told the jury that he considered there was not sufficient evidence to warrant submitting the case to the jury with a possibility of conviction. There was no direct evidence that the accused was in or about the premises of Truck Exchange, Ltd. at any time. If his statement was true ii appeared that accused was to some extent associated with the plant taken from the premises next door, but not by way of theft It was clear from the evidence that Timmings was not-the only person who had access to the shed where the regulator was found. The jury then returned a formal verdict of not guilty on all the counts.

ATTEMPTED RAPE CHARGE Young Man Found Not Guilty Kevin Francis Olley, aged 20 (Mr G. Lascelles) was found not guilty by a Supreme Court jury yesterday on alternative charges of attempted rape and indecent assault on a young woman.

Olley was alleged to have committed the offence on the river bank in Oxford terrace on January 9 after a dance at the Latimer Hall.

Addressing the jury the Crown Prosecutor (Mr C. M. Roper) said it must be obvious that the defence was in effect that the girl had asked for trouble and got it. But the evidence could not be reconciled with the suggestion that she had led the accused on. Mr Lascelles submitted that the complainant had consented to the actions of the accused, whom She had just met for the first time. She had gone to the river bank with him late at-night and had admitted kissing hi. After the first altercation she had had an opportunity to escape but had not done so. It was clear that the girl had led the accused on and had caused the situation that arose.

Summing up his Honour said the jury had to decide whether the accused had done the acts alleged against him and whether the girl had consented. Consent in such cases was an absolute defence. In cases of assault on females it was dangerous to convict an accused person on the uncorroborated evidence of the female concerned, but in this case the accused’s own statement could be accepted as corroboration.