Agent was considered for Sutch trial

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33904, 25 July 1975, Page 1

Agent was considered for Sutch trial

GV.Z. Press Association ■ WELLINGTONS July 24. Some thought had been given to bringing a British Intelligence officer to New Zealand to testify in the trial of Dr W. B. Sutch but the British Government had not supported the idea, the AttorneyGeneral (Dr Finlay), told Parliament today. "This was promptly shelved when the British authorities made it quite clear that thev would not have one of their agents put on show in New Zealand.” he said. Dr Finlay was speaking durine the debate on the

estimates of expenditure; for the Crown Law 7 Office j n The officer would have given l i_ the jury’ some idea of the activities of the Russian' e intelligence service, hei h said. i- Dr Finlay said that when the; d matter had been raised' last Thursday by the' d Leader of the Opposition (Mr Muldoon), he had no j knowledge of the affair. I- Since then he had learnt ir more. Mr Muldoon had e been inaccurate in saying it that the Crown Law. i- Office vetoed the idea, because the Crown had an r _. “open and shut case.” el In the first place the Crown I

i Law Office had no power; i of veto and nothing to do| I with the expense of transporting the agent. Second, no lawyer was ever competent or silly; enough to say that he! had e,n open and shut case when it had to go before a jury. Dr Finlay said that even if the agent had appeared he personally doubted whether any of the evi-l I dence would have been admissible, because it; would have been hearsay and prejudicial. ' However, since making that I allegation Mr Muldoon ! i had asserted that two*

Ministers were to have! i testified at the trial, but! i had been shielded. “I give that the flattest pos-i i sible denial.” | Dr Finlay said Mr Muldoon should give the source of his “misinformation” and withdraw his allegations. 'The Deputy Leader of the' Opposition (Mr Taiboys)' said Mr Muldoon had! raised another matter! i last Thursday night' about a contempt of court motion that had! ' been filed against the; . Prime Minister (Mr J Rowling). i'Dr Finlay had said the Cabi-

net had the matter under ’ discussion, but since •hat time an officer ofj the Crown Law Depart-; ment had said an apology i , would be acceptable. In reply, Dr Finlay said he i would give again a flat; denial that any apology had been considered. Also he had not said the lj matter was before the. ■ Cabinet but that the t Cabinet could consider the matter if a Minister! lj were sued in his private > i capacity. f | Mr D. Thomson (Nat., Strat- ; ford) asked what advice ■ i the Crown Law Office

I was giving when two Ministers of the Crow n | had had action taken i against them — the | Prime Minister, for | actions taken when he was Minister of Fini ance, and the former; Deputv Prime Minister; (Mr Watt). Why was the Crown Law Office getting the Government into “such extraordinary tangles?” ■I Mr Thomson asked. ! “It can only be assumed that this Government arro•j. gantly ignores advice •! given to it by the Crown si Law Office.”