Quashing Of 165 Convictions Sought By Prisoner

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29189, 27 April 1960, Page 11

Quashing Of 165 Convictions Sought By Prisoner

. (New Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, April 26. A motion for a writ of certiorari by Noel Raymond Tuohy, aged 33, a company director and car salesman, to have convictions on 164 charges of false pretences and one of theft imposed by a Rotorua Magistrate quashed, was heard before Mr Justice Turner in the Supreme Court at Auckland today. His Honour reserved his decision. Tuohy, who is serving a sentence of four and a half years’ imprisonment, appeared on his own behalf. In May, 1957, Tuohy was convicted of the offences by Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M.. the sum involved being £69,123. It was alleged he used fictitious names and filed details of non-existent cars to obtain finance from investment companies. Tuohy was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on each of tl*s first four charges of false pretences, the terms to be cumulative. On the charge of theft he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, and on the remaining 160 counts he was convicted and discharged. Today Tuohv said he was not guilty of the charges, and claimed the police did not investigate the informations laid against him, but merely acted on the word of the finance companies and his own counsel.

He said his counsel wrongly advised him to plead guilty of false pretences when his counsel Hot only knew, but was party to what he had done, which consti-

tuted breaches of the Hire-pur-chase Act. He contended there had been a miscarriage of justice in that he had been tried, sentenced, and had served imprisonment for crimes he had not committed. Crown Submissions Mr S. A. Cleal, for the Crown, submitted that there was no justification whatever for the application, as inquiries had not revealed anything substantial in the allegations made by Tuohy. “He appealed against his sentence before Mr Justice Stanton in 1957, and the appeal was dismissed,” said Mr Cleal. “He also made application for a rehearing before Mr Freeman, but that was also refused. Tuohy has been assigned legal aid, but he prefers to conduct his own case.” His Honour asked Tuohy why he had done nothing about the matter for 18 months. “The Court can have no idea of the trouble I have had in bringing this matter into Court,” said Tuohy. “I am not allowed to have legal books in prison. I am not allowed to have them in the presence of the welfare officer or the padre. I have had 14 lawyers through the prison, but they will not help me. In addition I have had at least 178 visits from lawyers.” His Honour said it might be that if he allowed such actions to be delayed indefinitely, the course of justice might be delayed. He felt strongly that the application deserved dismissal, but as there were aspects he wished to consider he would defer judgment