“Look-out” Man Found Guilty Of Burglary

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32114, 9 October 1969, Page 12

“Look-out” Man Found Guilty Of Burglary

An accused man, 'William John Lewis Hall, aged 27, unemployed, had on. his own statement been the driver of a car which “flew away” from the scene of a Colombo Street tobacconist’s shop burglary when police cars approached, submitted the Crown in the Supreme Court yesterday. Hall, standing trial on a charge of burglary of the shop of H. M. Madigan, 560 Colombo Street, on the night of August 18, pleaded not guilty and was defended by Mr R. N. Wilkes. At the very least, submitted the Crown Prosecutor (Mr N. W. Williamson), Hall had been the driver of the car which took two other men, Lyall Lewis and David McCormick, to the shop and had acted as their look-out Mr Justice Wilson, in his summing-up, asked the jury to consider whether Hall’s reason for driving away when police cars approached—that he had been drinking and did not want to be “caught” with a breath-analyser test—was a valid one. Or was it that he must have been well aware of the burglary, and drove off when the police arrived? The shop proprietor, Howard Mayo Madigan, who lived in a flat above his premises, had given evidence that the noise of breaking glass was “like a bulldozer coming in,” his Honour reminded the jury. If the jury did convict the accused, his Honour said, it should be on the basis that he aided and abetted others.

After a retirement of an hour and a half, the jury found Hall guilty. He was remanded by his Honour for sentence on October 15. Detective Constable P. N. Gardiner had given evidence that when Hall’s car was pursued and stopped in Durham Street, with the man Lewis a passenger in it, Hall had said he was driving home from a party and knew nothing of

any burglary. "You must be joking. It wasn’t me,” Hall had said. “You’ve got the wrong fellow.” Detective D. N. Stewart gave evidence that next day Hall, after consulting a solicitor, had made a statement (produced) in which he admitted parking his car in Colombo Street, south of Bath Street (near Madigan’s shop), so that one of his party could relieve himself. “Dave McCormick got out of the car, wandered down the footpath, and looked in a shop window. He disappeared ... I heard some breaking glass, but did not pay much attention to it,” the statement said. Under cross-examination. Detective Stewart agreed that the fingerprints of Lewis and McCormick had been found in Mr Madigan’s shop, and glass splinters in Lewis’s hair and clothing, but nothing as regards the accused. Constable R.' Powell, the driver of a police patrol car, said that as he drove down Colombo Street he saw a dark-grey car at the kerb,: with a man alongside it and a second man walking from the direction of Mr Madigan's shop. “I gained the impression it was the accused, but could not swear to it on oath,” witness said. Mr Wilkes, after electing not to call evidence, submitted to the jury that Hall had given a reasonable explanation for being near the scene of the burglary and for driving away—one which must leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about the Crown’s case.

Mr Williamson, however, submitted that Hall’s explanation was unrealistic. On the evidence, he had been parked quite close to Mr Madigan’s shop, and had admitted bearing glass being broken. It was impossible that he could have been unaware that the other two men were breaking open the shop door.