SUPREME COURT Acquitted On Indecent Assault Charge; Costs Against Crown

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31835, 13 November 1968, Page 7

SUPREME COURT Acquitted On Indecent Assault Charge; Costs Against Crown

After being directed by Mr Justice Wilson that it would be dangerous to convict, a Supreme Court jury of 12 men found Owen William de Burghe-Thomas, aged 41, a wharf night-watchman, not guilty of indecently assaulting a girl aged 18 at Lyttelton in the early hours of August 17. De Burghe-Thomas, who was represented by Mr R. A. Young, was discharged. Mr N. W. Williamson prosecuted for the Crown. His Honour awarded Thomas SBO costs and disbursements against the Crown on Mr Young’s application. His Honour said costs should be allowed on a reduced scale, particularly because the Crown had not been prepared to proceed on two occasions because of the absence of two vital witnesses.

His Honour said he would' not award full costs by any means because he thought de Burghe-Thomas did contribute to his position by his foolishness in keeping the complainant with him. In addition, it might have been that if he had come forward promptly with his explanation a full investigation by the police might have resulted in the charge being dropped. Jury Warned His Honour warned the jury that it was always dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant. The law had recognised for more than 100 rears that women sometimes laid false charges of a sexual nature, which were easily made, hard to refute, and could lead to grave injustices His Honour recalled that the girl had said that de Burghe-Thomas threatened to slap her if she screamed again and that she put both hands over her mouth to stop herself from screaming. “If you believe that," he said, “then you must take it that she preferred to he raped than to be slapped.” It was also dangerous, said his Honour, to pay much attention to evidence of her distress.

“If she was frustrated in > an attempt to board a ship.! her tears could have been tears of rage and frustration j and nothing to do with shame I and shock," he said. His Honour said a thing; that seemed odd in her story | was that the accused, having j been unable to have inter-' course on the ground and; being frustrated, should have proposed having intercourse in a much more difficult position standing up—especially difficult considering the difference in their heights. There were so many improbabilities in her story, said his Honour, that it would he dangerous for the jury to convict the accused. It was not as if she was a girl of

unimpeachable character or credibility. He added that there were also improbabilities in accused's story. “Silent Evidence”

Mr Williamson told the jury that de Burghe-Thomas had told a carefully concocted but rather glib sort of story. He said the girl had made a complaint and the silent evidence had confirmed it; accused had seen the silent evidence and then given his explanation. Mr Young described the complainant as a lady of the world who met seamen and went aboard ships—a young lady who roamed the waterfront.

If de Burghe-Thomas had used such a measure of violence one would have expected her panties to be damaged. “You may feel,” he said, “that those red panties were no more than part of her saleswomanship.” The lost button was consistent with accused’s story of a struggle, but it was not known how the zip was damaged. “We don’t know if the zip was ever done up,” said Mr Young. She had told the detective that she had been at Lyttelton only two or three days, but in fact she had been hanging around Lyttelton and ships for months. There was a complete lack of corroboration of her story. Story “An Insult”

Mr Young said the girl’s story of being on the wharf at 3 a.m. to look for pigeous was an insult to the jury’s intelligence. He submitted that the nightwatchman, doing his lonely duty early in the morning, was vulnerable to “attack by this fallen woman.” A verdict of not guilty might 1 deter others from attemptgin to perpetrate something ! similar.

Giving evidence on his own behalf, de Burghe-Thomas said that when he encountered the two girls and the boy for the second time he advised them to split up because the police were looking for three young persons. The other girl and her brother walked away, but the complainant beaded down the wharf. In the course of an argument he told her what he thought she was. She raised her hand and he thought she was going to scratch his face. He grabbed her hand and pushed her back. She lost her footing and when he grabbed her about the middle of her body he felt something give. De Burghe-Thomas said he fell on top of her, but rolled off straight away. “I said: ‘l’ve a good mind to go to the police about this, then you’ll be sorry.’ She said: ‘You're the one whose going to be sorry,’ and ran off in the direction of the railway station.” Accused said that the complainant was lying when she said he had pulled her slacks and panties down to her knees and had sought to have intercourse with her. To Mr Williamson, de Burghe-Thomas said he had called the girl “a low-down slut, just trying to get aboard ships." He denied that he thought she was one who could easily be taken advantage of because she was a person of easy virtue. He said he did not tell the police his version of the incident because of the detective’s belligerent attitude and because he thought he had better get legal adviqp. He denied pushing the girl up against the shed wall, talking about intercourse, taking his coat off or putting his hand inside her clothing.