SUPREME COURT Trial On Three Charges Of Blackmail

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31061, 17 May 1966, Page 14

SUPREME COURT Trial On Three Charges Of Blackmail

Three charges of blackmail were faced in the Supreme Court yesterday by a man alleged to have attempted to extort £750, £250, and £750 from three Christchurch men by threatening to disclose sexual misconduct.

The accused, Edward Arthur Newton, aged 43, a storeman, has pleaded not guilty, and is defended by Mr M. J. Glue.

Mr Justice Macarthur suppressed the names of the three complainants, the names of two women mentioned in the case, the name of an organisation with which the accused and two of the complainants were connected and any addresses mentioned. But, said his Honour, this would be an interim order only—he would review it at the end of the case. The allegations of sexual misconduct had nothing to do with the charges against Newton, said the Crown Prosecutor (Mr C. M. Roper) to the jury. Its sole concern would be with “the stealthy and secret crime of blackmail.” Letters Blackmail by Newton was alleged on January 26 and 27, said Mr Roper. On the first date, the first complaintant received an anonymous letter which began:— “Dear Mr —, How much is your marriage worth? How much is your reputation worth? After studying your financial status and your credit rating, I have assessed you at the standard fee of £5OO and Mrs at £250, you being responsible for the production of the total sum. Failure to produce this by January 28 will result in a series of letters being posted with details of your liaison. Distribution of this information will include ... In addition, I have offered to certain of the addresses extracts on tape from recordings made of telephone conversations, and in Mrs —'s car by means of a small transmitter.” On the same date, said Mr Roper, the second complainant received a similarstyle letter, saying in part:— “Dear Mr —, I have recently completed an investigation into the affairs of a Mrs and will be forwarding my report shortly to my firm. However, I wondered how you would feel about being named in the papers? It would not do your marriage any good, nor your reputation with the —. ‘Truth’ could probably make it sound good. [A suggested headline followed.] Should you wish your name left out of proceedings, my fee is £250. That is a reasonable sum to save your marriage and name, and your financial standing and credit rating will stand it. Put it down to experience . . . Method of payment will be made known later. Money is to be in single £1 notes. Any effort to apprehend my partner in the collection of same, or any other form of a cross, will result in a very sad set of circumstances for you.” Third Letter On January 27, said Mr Roper, the third complainant

received a somewhat similar letter, saying:— “Dear Mr —, How much is your marriage and business reputation worth? And Mrs —’s? I have assessed them at £5OO and £250 respectively after studying your credit ratings. You will be responsible for providing the total sum by January 28. Money is to be in £1 notes and is to be ready by p.m., the method of collection being arranged later . . . Failure to produce will indicate you are unwilling to pay, in which case I shall post various letters to certain parties, including your wife, selected business etc., giving full details of your extra-marital exercises with Mrs —, up to and including the Auckland jaunt in November last. I also have tapes available of conversations and various noises recorded during your extra office time and Mrs —’s silhouette time! !!.... letters and tapes will be destroyed within one week of payment.” In each case, Mr Roper said, the complainant was to indicate that the money was ready by inserting a given short advertisement in the personal columns of “The Press” or the Christchurch “Star”—but in the first two cases, the complainants were telephoned by a man, asking if the letters had been received. Both complainants, in subsequent calls from the man, recognised him by his voice as Newton—and one of them, already having his suspicions that it was Newton (from references to a certain organisation in the letter) had taken the precaution of making a tape recording of the conversation. [This tape recording was played to the Court, which sat in the small jury room to hear it, because of the better acoustics.] Plan Formed As all three complainants had approached the police, a conference was held to form a plan to trap the blackmailer, Mr Roper said. The first complainant, at the direction of Detective Sergeant E. G. Ward, typed a letter to the blackmailer (complaining of the difficulty of obtaining 750 £1 notes), the letter being treated with anthracene powder. This letter was given by I the first complainant to a woman he knew (named in the blackmailer’s letter to him), and she handed it to Newton on February 1. The next morning the first complainant had another telephone call from an anonymous man, when the following conversation ensued:— “Caller: I can’t understand why you should be experiencing difficulty in getting £1 notes. What’s the problem? “Complainant: I told you. It isn’t easy to obtain that quantity. “Caller: Rubbish. You just go to your bank and demand them. . . "Complainant: What guarantee have 1 got?

“Caller: Look, I don’t bleed people. I’ve got plenty of customers. . .” Parcel Meanwhile, the second complainant had prepared to follow out the blackmailer’s instructions to leave a parcel of 250 £1 notes under the letter-box of a house in Bryndwr. This address the police kept under watch. [A voice on the tape-record-ing could clearly be heard to say: “Take it round to —. They’ll all be out. Leave it under the post-box.” This voice, said the second complainant in his evidence, he was sure was Newton’s.] After the second complainant had left his parcel, addressed to “Mr Jaspar,” as instructed, but containing 250 pieces of paper, Newton drove up soon after 12 p.m., parked his car in the driveway of the house, got out, and then picked up the parcel. He was then accosted by the police, waiting nearby. Police tests, said Mr Roper, showed traces of anthracene powder on Newton’s trousers, and on parts of his car. Questioned, he admitted he had read the first complainant’s letter and then burnt it —from which the jury could infer that he was the blackmailer, Mr Roper said. Seven Points In support of this inference, Mr Roper asked the jury to consider the following points: Newton knew all the parties involved in the case, but on his arrival back in Christchurch on December 15, 1965, after two years in Australia, did not disclose his return to them. Newton admitted that a woman he knew had told him of her association with the first two complainants. Newton admitted that this woman had told him of the third complainant’s association with a second- woman. Newton’s voice had been recognised on the telephone. Newton had a past association with an organisation referred to in the blackmail letters. Newton had been for two years in Australia, where ordinary postage was sd, and the blackmailer’s letters all bore 5d stamps. After Newton’s arrest no more blackmail letters or telephone calls were received by the complainants. Evidence Evidence along the lines traversed by Mr Roper was given by all three complainants, and by the woman named in the first two letters. The woman said that she had been friendly with Newton before he went to Australia, and had gone over to Brisbane on a visit about November, 1965, where she had a reunion with Newton over a champagne supper. As she felt his feelings towards her had cooled, she decided to test them by implying an association with other men. “I wanted to test the real

depth of his feelings,” she said. “I said that I had not been neglected over the last two years.” She had intimated she had been indiscreet with other men, she said, two of whom were the first two complainants.

Mr Glue: You thought you would test his love, and you mentioned the names of— and ? The witness: Yes. You mentioned the names of three other men?—Yes. And you implied that at some time each of the five had had intercourse with you?—Yes, I implied that. The woman said she resumed acquaintance with Newton on his return to New Zealand on December 15, but he kept clear of former friends and associates to Christchurch. Detective Constable W. J. Gilmour, in evidence of an interview with Newton after his apprehension at the letter-box, said that Newton had claimed himself to have received a blackmailing letter, and had said he was “sick with worry at his lot.” The trial will resume today.

Art Prize Judge.—Mr A. D. Baker, of New South Wales, is to be sole judge for this year’s Kelliher art prize competition.—(P.A.)

Decimal currency will be introduced in New Zealand in July, 1967. Recommended conversion rates from 5s to £1 are as follows:

5s 50c 13s $1.30 6s 60c 14s $1 40 7s 70c 15s $1.50 8s 80c 16s £1 60 9s 90c 17s $1.70 10s $1 18s $1.80 11s $1 10 19s $1 90