Thomas advertisements misleading — Dr Finlay

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33792, 14 March 1975, Page 2

Thomas advertisements misleading — Dr Finlay

AZ. Press Association? WELLINGTON, March 13. Newspaper advertisements placed by the Arthur Thomas appeal, fund were strongly criticised by the Attorney-General (Dr Finlay) today. The notices implied that Thomas had been unfairly treated and wrongfully convicted, Dr Finlay said. In a statement, he said the first of the advertisements, placed in newspaper public notices columns, said “Justice takes on a new meaning when the accused must prove his innocence and any doubts go in favour of the Crown.” “This is a completely misleading statement of the position.” Dr Finlay said, i

“Arthur Thomas has been I tried by two juries, and con- : victed by both, in each case I after the jury had been directed that the case against him had to be proved beyond teasonable doubt, and that if' ■ such doubt existed he was 1 entitled to the benefit of it,” ; he said. “He has had two appeals;, to the Court of Appeal, both of which were dismissed. “He has had two references to the Court of Appeal by i the Governor-General ini Council, one of which was by way of an appeal that was dismissed, and the other a request by the GovernorGeneral for advice upon two aspects of the matter. “This last reference to the Court of Appeal was .based on a claim that since the second trial fresh evidence had been discovered 'clearly establishing that the cartridge case fired from Thomas's rifle and found outside the Crewe,

homestead could not have; fired either of the bullets, fragments of which were found in the bodies’,” Dr Finlay said. “This positive assertion was submitted to the Court of Appeal in a form — approved by Thomas's legal advisers — which invited it to determine whether this assertion had been established. “These advisers accepted the fact that the burden of proving this rested on Thomas.” he said. “The Court found he had not done so, and no more was required of it.” The case was one of a man, twice convicted of murder, who was alleging that certain facts would demonstrate that his conviction was wrongful. He was not called upon to prove his innocence, but to prove a factual contention which might cast doubt on his conviction. i “This is an utterly differ-

ent position from the case of the man who is accused and who is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. “It is worth noting, too. that the burden upon him of establishing the proposition • asserted on his behalf was that of a balance of probabili- , ties, whereas in all the cases where the burden was on the Crown, proof was beyond I reasonable doubt,” Dr Finlav said. i “In another notice published by Dr T. J. Sprott it I is stated that he seeks cer- • tain cartridges in order to ‘establish yet again that the . bullets which killed Mr and , Mrs Crewe did not come from i.the cartridge case alleged to • have been found on the . Crewe property.’ i “Dr Sprott ought to be well > aware that far from having i, to establish it yet again, the i Court of Appeal’s finding was that it has not yet been es- • ablished at all,” he said.