SUPREME COURT Counsel address jury in joint murder trial

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33883, 1 July 1975, Page 5

SUPREME COURT Counsel address jury in joint murder trial

Mr Justice Macarthur will sum up in the Supreme Court this morning in the trial of two brothers who are charged with the murder of a 63-year-old widow in her <3ashel Street cottage on April 6. 1974. The trial began on June 23. Yesterday the Grown prosecutor and defence counsel addressed the jury.

James William Lewis,! aged 24, and Michael Arthur Lewis, aged 21. ' have pleaded not guilty to a charge of murdering Phyllis Myrtle Reidy. ' The defence called no evidence. Messrs N. W. Williamson and G. K. Panckhurst appear' for the Crown; Messrs K. N.| Hampton and R. J. Murfitt' for James Lewis; and Messrs A. D. Holland and K. J. I Jones for Michael Lewis. In his final address to the jury Mr Williamson said; that Mrs Reidy died on I April 6 because of head and neck injuries inflicted by a combination of blows from the two accused during a prolonged beating. When she was senseless on the floor her money was taken. Calm and dispassionate) consideration was required by the jury’. Feelings, whether sympathy for Mrs Reidy, pity for the young men accused or disgust at witnesses who watched this happen and did nothing, had to be put aside in the interests of justice. Police witnesses had been cross-examined about a decision at a conference on June 13, 1974, not to charge) Michael Lewis. It was suggested that the reason was that the police considered Michael’s admission was unreliable or flimsy. Detective Sergeant Scott said the reason was that the police considered the evidence available against Michael was insufficient at that time. The police were also asked about subsequent! procedure and it was sug-j gested that there was some-' thing underhand in the way: the matter was dealt with. I There was no evidentiary) basis for such a suggestion. COMBINED The decision on June 13 and the subsequent procedure related to other persons’ opinions and evidence available then and the suggestion was raised as a smoke-screen. It was not relevant to the jury’s task which was to decide on the

evidence heard at this trial. It was necessary to consider the charge against

I each accused separately alI though they were jointly charged. It was the comI bined effect of all the evidence which was important and it included the evidence of the two girl eye-wit-nesses, the admissions made by each accused, and the scientific evidence. Members of the jury I might think that the two! i girls were rather unfortunate (persons. The 15-year-old had i been pregnant to Michael and she had been threatened about the evidence she was I to give. It was obvious that at James Lewis’s first trial she did not tell the whole , truth. Her evidence had to] I be treated carefully. A num-i ! ber of times she said: “I don’t remember” and “I’m | not sure.” “You may conclude that she was trying to tell what I she did see — limited by her terror on the night and ; her natural revulsion to look I at and think about the ghastly happenings of that night,” Mr Williamson said. The girl had described the various attacks on Mrs Reidy and her evidence was supported by the silent but graphic evidence of the blood on the walls, floor and refrigerator. ‘PATHETIC’ The other girl, the friend of James Lewis, was a rather pathetic figure. In crossexamination she answered yes to almost anything asked of her. However, the remaining Crown witnesses provided reliable and independent evidence. It clearly established the extensive nature of the battering this unfortunate woman must ) have received — the injuries, the palmprint in ] blood on the refrigerator, j the blood spattered about )and the clump of hair. ) The Crown case was that Mrs Reidy had died as the ) result of multiple injuries to (the head, face and neck, 1 ; inflicted by James and . Michael Lewis with murder- • ous intent. The two brothers > joined each other in a con- ■ certed attack on Mrs Reidy, i They encouraged each other t to commit the offence, Mr : Williamson said. : Mr Hampton in his

address said that just over 12 months ago James Lewis stood in the dock of the Su-

preme Court at the end of a. trial on a charge of murder] in which the Crown had said i he was solely responsible!' for the death of Mrs Reidy. ; Now he was jointly charged with his brother.

After outlining the history of the case Mr Hampton denied that it was being used as a sort of smoke-screen as had been suggested by the prosecution. At James Lewis’s first trial the Crown had not led evidence about

Michael kicking Mrs Reidy in the left side of the head — a very important matter because that was where the

major injuries had occurred. After the kick her screams had slowly died away. That indicated that Jimmy was not the one responsible for her death.

‘DIFFERENT CASE’ Now that James Lewis had been jointly charged with his brother the Crown presented a very different case from that at the first trial. The Crown claimed that the brothers made a concerted attack on Mrs Reidy. It was too easy to make Jim a scapegoat for the whole affair by saying that he was the first to hit Mrs Reidy, the first to admit anything and the first to be charged.

The bungling and inefficency of the prosecution, the lack of proper inquiries, scientific and medical evidence, must not be visited on James Lewis. If the Crown lacked proof then that was the fault of the prosecution and the jury should not have to guess or fill in gaps in the Crown case. Mr Hampton asked members of the jury to consider with the greatest care the possible causes of death and the actual injury or injuries which might have caused death and who caused them because those matters were vital. “What I say to you is that it was not Jim who caused her death. He may be many things, many unattractive things — tattooed and tatty, ignorant and foul-mouthed, lacking in intelligence, quick to use his fists and even a parasite — but he is not a murderer,” said Mr Hampton. ASSAULT Mrs Reidy suffered a horrible and gory death but members of the jury should not let the blood colour or cloud their judgment and should examine the facts dispassionately. On the evidence it was clear that James Lewis was guilty of assault but he was not charged with that offence. Right from the start it had not been disputed that he had punched and hit Mrs Reidy with his hand but he had never used his foot and there was evidence to support that. It had not been shown that what James Lewis did caused Mrs Reidy’s death. On the evidence it was Michael who did those acts and it had not been proved that James aided or abetted him, was involved in a concerted attack or common purpose.

There was no proof that I James hit Mrs Reidy with I the intention of robbing her. The theft of money was purely an afterthought. Members of the jury must not say that here were a

couple of hoods. One admitted hitting her and the other kicking her so they must both be guilty. The evidence had to be considered against each accused, Mr Hampton said. Mr Holland in his address said that the two girls who gave evidence for the Crown of the events that night in Mrs Reidy’s cottage had been shown to be unreliable and untruthful. “You have heard a sordid account of terrible actions by horrible people and I say to you that not one of those present can be relied on for one thing which happened unless there is independent evidence. There is a real danger that because of the revolting behaviour you have heard that you can’t let these two get away with it. If you are influenced in this way then you are not being true to your oath,” Mr Holland said. ‘NOT PROVED’ The Crown had charged Michael Lewis with murder but it had failed to prove that he had murdered Mrs

Reidy or caused her death in any way. It had not been proved that Mrs Reidy did not die as a result of an epileptic fit. Mrs Reidy had not been assaulted to get her money. The tragedy of it was that she was assaulted because she wanted the radio turned off. She was probably robbed after she was dead but she was not assaulted for that purpose. What probably happened here was that a man with animal instincts became cross and hit a poor defenceless woman and once blood was drawn the other brother became aroused to such a state that he hit her too. Had they wanted to kill this pathetic frail woman they could have strangled her or adopted some similar means. They had behaved like animals but there was no question of murder. “You may feel that the only reason why Michael is in the dock is because of a stupid attempt to try and pervert the course of justice to save his brother. The significant thing was that after Michael had acknowledged that he had kicked Mrs Reidy the police went ahead and charged Jimmy with being solely responsible for Mrs Reidy's death,” Mr Holland said. “You may be convinced that Michael is of low intellect. is stunid, amoral, and a citizen whom you despise, but in New Zealand we do not convict people because they are of an inferior intellect. We have not adopted the Nazi view tthat only the fit should live. The amoral stupid person still has to be proved guilty of the offence with which he is charged. “In this case there is only one verdict and that is not guilty,” said Mr Holland.