Two Acquitted On Burglary Charges

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30145, 31 May 1963, Page 7

Two Acquitted On Burglary Charges

A jury in the Supreme Court yesterday was in retirement for only 15 minutes before finding two men not guilty of burglary. The men. Graeme Russell Hancox (Mr B. J. Drake) and Kenneth Reuben Browne (Mr M. G. L. Loughnan) were charged with burgling the premises of the Calder Mackay Company, Ltd., on April 7 The safe was blown and £1834 stolen. Mr Justice Macarthur was on the Bench. Mr C. M. Roper prosecuted.

Before the jury retired his Honour directed that they should return a verdict of not guilty in the case of the accused Browne. This followed submissions by Mr Loughnan. who said that there was no case in *esoect of Browne to go before the jury.

The only evidence submitted against Browne was that he had purchased explosives eight months before the crime and that two neighbours had seen a man near Browne’s house in the early hours of April 8.

Mr Roper agreed that there appeared to be no case against Browne, but submitted that the matter must still go before the jury with a suitable direction from his Honour. After considering the mat ter in chambers, his Honour agreed that there was no: S’lfflcient evidence to warran: a conviction in the case of the accused Browne.

The prisecution’s cast ended abruptly yesterday nxrning when his Honour ruled inadmissible the evidence given by several Crown witnesses.

"his followed the hearing of this evidence on Wednesday by his Honour in the absence of the jury, and submissions by Mr Drake. -’’hen the Court resumed yesterday morning, his Honour said:

‘ I have considered the questions which have been raised concerning a statement allegedly made by Hie a cased Hanccx at the C. 1.8 office. I do not think tha' the evidence of this statement is precluded in common law or by the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act. but on the other hand the q iestion! arises whe.her I should, in

the exercise of my discretion, exclude the statement. “At the material time, although the accused Hancox had not been arrested, he was in custody within the neaning of the Judges' Rules. It follows that a warning in the usual manner should have been administered to him before he was asked any further questions in relation to the matter. I have, therefore, decided that in the exercise of my discretion I ought to exclude evidence of the alleged statement, and I so rule "

His Honour emphasised that his ruling was not of general application to cases where persons were being questioned at the C. 1.8. office. Each case had to be considered in relation to its articular facts, he said. No evidence was called for the defence of either accused. Io his final address to the jury, Mr Drake submitted hat the only evidence against Hancox was that the money was found buried in his back garden.