Sutch’s counsel moves to quash proceedings but trial goes on

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33774, 21 February 1975, Page 2

Sutch’s counsel moves to quash proceedings but trial goes on

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, February 20.

The Supreme Court trial of‘William Ball Sutch was interrupted at 10.30 a.m. for a motion to quash the proceedings under Section 347 of the Crimes Act, to be heard in chambers. This section deals with the judge’s power to discharge the accused.

This came after the conclusion of the evidence and cross- i examination of the Crown witnesses. Mr Bungay for Sutch ‘ consented to Sutch’s not being present at this chambers applica- < tion. i

The' trial resumed at, 11.46. Mr Justice Beattie said legal matters had : been resolved. Sutch, aged 67, an economic consultant, is charged that between April 18 and; September 26, 1974, for a! purpose prejudicial to thej safety or interests of the! State, he obtained inform-i ation which is calculated to! be, or might be, or is intended to be, directly or indirectly useful to an enemy ]

The trial is before Mr Justice Beattie and an all-male jury.

The Solicitor-General (Mr R. C. Savage, Q.C.)., and with him Mr D. P. Neazor. appear for the Crown, and Mr M. A. Bungay, with him, Mr I. A. Greig, for Sutch. ’ Binoculars ' The last of the Crown wit- 1 nesses, Detective Chief In-I spector Arthur Walter Baker entered the box in the morning to be crossexamined by Mr Bungay. Mr Baker agreed that Mr S, j one of the Security Intelli-) gence Service witnesses, had referred to having binoculars i in Hopper Street at this Supreme Court trial. He said] this was the first time he (Baker) had heard about this.) Mr Baker said the Security Intelligence Service men had prepared their own re-:

ports for the depositions brief.

Mr Bungay: And nowhere: in the report does Mr Si mention these binoculars? Witness: I can’t answer: that without some research. •

Mr Baker agreed that the police had wanted the security men in on the searches of Sutch’s house and office because they knew better than the police what they were looking for.

A number of documents were taken and in the area where Sutch was arrested in Holloway Road a tree was cut down “to see if anything could be found which may have been incriminating.” “The hook” Mr Baker agreed that Sutch was asked questions while they stood in the rain. He recalled saying . the accused had met the Russian on three occasions. The areas might have been mentioned, but not specifically. Mr Baker said he had no copy of the Official Secrets Act there or in the car. The discussion about “on the hook” was at the office. “That was my word,” Mr Baker said.

Mr Bungay: “Did he understand what was meant by ‘the hook’?”

) Witness: “Oh yes, that was i discussed.” Witness said the accused ) was first cautioned just before his arrest at 3.25 a.m. Witness agreed that the ■ practice was to caution a I suspected person when the ) officers’ mind was made up to arrest. Mr Bungay asked ) when Mr Baker’s mind had ; been made up. The witness said this had [been before 1.30 in the I morning. Witness said there had ) been conversations with Sutch at his home, but the |accused had been told he 'was going to be arrested. Mr Bungay: "Why wasn’t [he arrested at 1.30 a.m.?” Arrest Witness: “He was advised: he was going to be arrested.”) ) Mr Bungay: “That is a; (direct question.” : Witness said he could not: | say why Sutch was not arrested.

Mr Bungay: “But if he hart .been arrested he’d have had to be cautioned.”

Replying to a question in ire-examination by Mr Savlage, Mr Baker said Sutch had rsaid nothing after 1.30 a.m [that he had not said before. At this stage the judge and [counsel retired to chambers (to consider an application bv ; Mr Bungav under section 347 iof the Crimes Act. At the resumption of the court sitting at 11.46 his ; Honour said legal matters .were now resolved. He asked Mr Bungay if he wished to |call evidence. Mr Bungay immediately called Phillin North [Hollowav. the New Zealand Ambassador to Italy. Mr Hollowav said he had held his present position [since May, 1972 He was 57 Ivears old H? entered Parliament in 1954 as member for [Heretaunga. In 1958 he was Minister of Industries and Commerce. This apnointment (was taken uo in December, 1957, for a three-vear term. Mr Hollowav said he retired from politics in 1960. He would not sav exactly [when he first met Sutch. but (there were casual meetings! ;some time in the 19505. “Very close” When witness was Minister of Industries and Commerce, Sutch, who was an assistant director towards! the end of 1958, was ap-( pointed secretary of the Department.

Witness said he was asked: ii he had any objections to) the appointment, but was noti “consulted.” The Minister of [ State Services came, and thev j had a discussion. There had! been several applicants for the position, and witness was • told Sutch was the commission’s choice, and did Mr Holloway have any objections? “1 said I had no objec-

tion at all,” Mr Holloway ' said. Mr Bungay asked how close Mr Holloway and Sutch were when witness was the: Minister and Sutch the per-; manent head. Mr Holloway said they were very close. They saw each other two or three times a week and wdre in consultation by phone or otherwise nearly every day. Witness got to know Sutch very well. Mr Bungay asked what contact witness had with Sutch after he retired from (politics in 1960. Mr Holloway said between 1960 and (now he had seen Sutch no; (more than three times. One time was on a street.) once at an airport, and the; ' third occasion was in August,, last year, when the ambas-j isador was in Wellington and i ! Sutch went to visit him at his) ) hotel. , Mr Bungay said he would] (come to that meeting later. | “Impatient” His Honour interrupted; here to point out thej authority for character evidence: it must relate to con-! duct of the kind impeached) and be general and not] relating to particular interest. ( Mr Bungay asked Mr Hol loway the assessment of; accused’s “workability.” Witness: Sutch ’ was an extremely intelligent public servant who had a high ner-l vous drive He was a quick ■ worker and was very] Jmpatient with people who) (were not as ciuick as he was.; [He didn’t suffer fools gladly. Mr Holloway went on to Isay that Sutch had a tremendous drive to ensure all economic and commercial undertakings were controlled by New Zealand. “This was in many people’s view a fanaticism and did create some difficulties in I some commercial areas,” Mr Hollowav said. Mr Bungay: Did he appear to have any strong political [ opinions? Witness: To my knowledge he had no party political opinions at all. His whole ; attitude was governed by his [work. I never heard him discuss party politics. Mr Bungay: And his loyalty? Witness: I don’t think that there was any question of his loyaltv to his country. Mr Holloway went to to describe a meeting with the accused in August, last year, when he was in New Zealand for a short stage and in Wellington for five days. “Sutch rang me at my hotel and asked for, an appointment to see me. It was a very busy schedule and I first told him it was iust not possible to spare him the time. Sutch persisted and I agreed to meet him at :8 a.m. I did so. Frustration Mr Holloway said they ) talked about a number of : subjects, but one special thing Sutch asked was that he (Holloway) would intervene on his behalf with the Prime Minister to ensure I Sutch was employed in some; [field by the Government in keeping with his qualifications. Sutch, witness explained, is an economist. (He felt frustrated that the [only work he had been asked :to do was with the Arts i Council. Mr Holloway said he listened to the accused and; [understood him. “But his whole conversation during that hour was to my mind a little irrational, and in the: short, time I saw the Prime Minister I did not raise Sutch’s request.” Cross-examined by Mr Savage. Mr Holloway was; asked if he would describe 1 Sutch as stupid. Witness: Generally, no. Mr Savage: When vou were Minister and accused became Secretary (of Industries and Commerce) had you any information as to his acceptability to other countries so far as classified information was concerned?—No, it was not raised. The fact that he was passed bv the commission meant to me he was; passed.

Mr Savage: Did you know (anything of the acceptabilityl i |of accused to travel to other t •countries?—No. Mr Savage: Do you know : anything about 10 years priori to that, in relation to the! Soviet Union?—No. Mr Savage: Have you ever heard of Kim Philby?—Yes. I Mr Savage: He was a servant of the British intelli-1 i gence service for some 20! , years before being detected , as a spy?—So I believe. Mr Savage: Ever heard of ’ Blake?—Yes, I have. ) Mr Savage: A member of . the British diplomatic service ’ for many years?—l can’t con- . firm that. i At this point Mr Bungay | . objected to the questioning,! ‘ but Mr Savage explained his! j line of questioning. v Mr Savage: Mr Holloway,; the view vou have expressed; [is based on a relatively short ;)period of his working for the ' department while you were jits head. Would you accept a I [person in fact acting as a spy J for another country would be scarcely likely to disclose his j. affiliation? ! Witness: I presume that would be unlikely. Mr Savage: I put it to you 1 that when you express opin>iion on accused’s loyaltv, you - express a personal judgment ■ lon the three years you knew l[him? —Yes. t: Re-examined bv Mr Bun- • gay. Mr Hollowav said he; had known Sutch to be flstunid. not often, but if he; had a matter which had not; ,: been accepted he was often) stupid enough to pursue it to! [the ultimate and annoy! ;! people. Mr Holloway said that if ,) Sutch bad not been allowed ( to handle classified information. he had not been told 3 of it; and as Minister he would have expected to be told: in fact, it would have been a serious error on some- * one’s part if he was not told. ! He said Sutch did not go s abroad in the three years of , his appointment, but it was J not 1 the custom in those days * for people in that position to r go abroad. Mr Bungav: .Have you ever i met Kim Philby? 1 Witness: No. never. Mr Bungav: Have von met ’ Blake?—l have not had that ■ questionable honour either. Ombudsman Next to enter the witness- > box was Sir Guy Richardson Powles. the Ombudsman, t apnearing under subpoena, f He said he had known Su tr h for 54 years. > They were boys at WelJ lington College together , though Sutch was a year - behind him. i In 1937. they collaborated to prepare a book on coni temporarv New Zealand for > the British Commonwealth t Relations Conference in New ? South Wales in 1938. ; They were both in the: ? Army at the same time, but j were not in contact. They t were both overseas together

They were both in the Army at the same time, but were not in contact. They were both overseas together for New Zealand, but witness said he was in Washington and Sutch went to look after the New York office in about 1947-48. and although he knew Sutch was there. Sir Guy said thev were doing quite a different type of work and did not contact each other. Sir Guy said he was appointed Ombudsman while Sutch was Secretary of the Department of Industries and: Commerce. In their respective roles they met only once or twice, but Sir Guy had: been to his house, he knew’ Sutch did a very large range) of writing, and read most of it, including reports and; speeches. ;

Sir Guy said he had a number of purely casual meetings with Sutch. “They were just talks on the footpath, not very often,” he said.

Mr Bungay asked him if he felt in a position to pass comment on Sutch’s character.

Sir Guy answered that this; could best be gathered from! his writing. Sutch was onej of the most publicised public’ figures in New Zealand because of the way he had ex-: pounded his views. Sir Guy| said he regarded him as a most staunch New Zealand; nationalist. . Mr Bungay: Have you ever; | had any reason to doubt his I loyalties? Witness: No, never. Bruce Alexander Richard: I Spence, of Canterbury, man-) ; aging director of Alliance 1 Textiles. Ltd, said he first; met Sutch in the mid-19505) before he retired as head of) the Industries and Commerce) Department. He had a lot of business! dealings with him since; Sutch’s appointment as economic adviser to the New; Zealand Textiles and Woollen; Mills Association. When the previous director retired, Sutch was engaged as economic consultant. The understanding was that he would continue consultancy work on his own behalf, [and that he could at that ’time continue to be associated with New Zealand Steel “Most loyal”

He thought Sutch was in' .some way connected in an economic capacity with the! Reserve Bank. The understanding was that, provided the affairs of the woollen mills association received priority, Sutch could continue his writing, his lecturing. and his consultancy work. Witness said he had been president of the Textiles and Woollen Mills Association for almost nine years. He met Sutch two, three, or four times a week. Sutch stayed at his home. ' “He has visited the South Island units of my company. He has stayed in my home. I have been to his home, I think on three occasions.” Asked by Mr Bungay how he would describe Sutch’s attitude toward New Zealand, Spence said he could only regard him as the most loyal New’ Zealander he had met. Mr Spence said he was aware that Stuch was arrested in the early hours of September, last year. Two police officers visited him (Spence) at his office at Timaru about October 10 or 12 last year. Admiration It was clear that they had come to ask him questions about Sutch. Asked by Mr Bungay what was the nature of the detectives’ questions, Mr Spence said he had been asked ,if he was aware that Sutch had been arrested, and if there was any information he could I help them with which could) confirm Sutch might have passed information into Russian hands.

Mr Bungay: Were you able tc help?

Witness: I was unable to help. Asked if he was a warm [admirer and personal friend lof Sutch, Mr Spence said: “I ;am indeed.”

’) Tomorrow counsel will give I (final addresses, and Mr Justice Beattie will sum up.