Supreme Court NOT GUILTY OF THEFT

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29981, 16 November 1962, Page 7

Supreme Court NOT GUILTY OF THEFT

Wrecker’s Car Parts

A young man was found not guilty by a Supreme Court jury yesterday on a charge at stealing a car generator and axle valued at £lO from a wrecker’s yard at Sockburn on August 15. He is Kevin Raymond BytheU, aged 22, a labourer, who was charged with stealing the property from the premises of South Island Auto Services, owned by Gerald Rhodes. BytheU was represented by Mr C. E. Purchase. Mr C. M Roper appeared for the Crown. After evidence for the Crown of Bythell’s apprehension at the wrecker’s yard at 10.45 pm. on August 15, and evidence of his explanation to the police, BytheU gave evidence on his own behalf. He said he was a relief driver in August for a contracting firm which dumped spoil on Rhodes's premises. On another occasaion he had been there with his brother-in-law to dump other material, and had been given permission by the attendant to remove car parts. On the evening of the alleged offence he had been building furniture at his flat with a friend and at 10 p.m. reached the stage where he could go no further without some plywood to cover the frame. They went to the Sockbum yard to get the plywood from an old truck canopy.

BytheU said he turned his car lights out because he knew the general public was not supposed to go into the premises. He and his friend had removed the plywood and were talking about it when the Crown Security Service man, Toombs, arrived.

He said he had nothing to do with taking the axle and generator, and he would not have taken the plywood if he had not regarded it as being of no value.

To Mr Roper, Bythell said he had told Toombs there was no other person with him because he wanted to protect his friend. He said his friend had told him that he had been in trouble, and was then on probation. He said his friend could not have put the axle and generator in the car, because they were together all the time.

Asked if the only other explanation was that either the police or one of the two Crown Security Service men had put the goods in his car, BytheU said: "I could say yes, but I still don’t know who put them there.” In his summing-up, Mr Justice Macarthur said it was a case where the credibility of witnesses was important. One factor was that two Crown witnesses were paid servants of a firm which did security safeguarding work for a fee.

On the other hand the jury had heard the accused and it must weigh him up. As a matter of law there was evidence on which the jury could find BytheU guilty. The jury could also quite properly come to the conclusion that there was a reasonable doubt which would result in a verdict of acquittal.