Thomas case will not be reopened

Press, 3 May 1977, Page 1

Thomas case will not be reopened

PA Wellington The Government will not order a reopening of the Arthur Allan Thomas case. &

After several weeks of consideration over submissions by two Auckland investigators, Dr Jim Sprott and Mr Pat Booth, the Cabinet decided yesterday that the mater 1 presented was not of sufficient weight to re-operi the controversial doublemurder trial. The Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) said that he doubted whether anyone could ever be absolutely certain as to Thomas’s innocence or guilt. However, Thomas had been convicted on circumstantial evidence by two different juries, and the basis of the campaign against the two convictions was also circumstantial evidence. Mr Muldoon said that the submissions made by Dr Sprott and Mr Booth — described at the time as “new evidence” — had been “a detailed analysis of many events, which in their view had a bearing on the case.” _

“While this may have had a bearing on the case, it fell short of what was required to convince the Cabinet to reopen the case,” he said. Mr Muldoon said that the material submitted last year by the two Auckland investigators had been assessed by the Secretary of Justice (Mr G. S. Orr) and the Solicitor-General (Mr R. C. Savage). Letters from Thomas’s father received by himself and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Maclntyre) had also been assessed.

Mr Muldoon said that he believed the Auckland in/estigators and other individuals who supported Thomas’s innocence were preparing further submissions on Thomas’s behalf. “What they huve to do is produce evidence which makes it clear that evidence given at the trial was wrong and can be rebutted, and that this rebuttal is of sufficient importance that it could have produced a different result from the jury,” he said. The Crown had gained a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence had been used in art attempt to rebut the conviction, Mr Muldoon said.

“I’m not certain in my mind, but having dealt with it the decision is one we should accept,”, he said. Mr Muldoon said that he had written to Dr Sprott and Mr Booth yesterday “at some length,” giving details of the Cabinet’s decision. He had also arranged to have the decision read to Mr Booth over the phone yesterday afternoon.

The Minister of Justice (Mr Thomson) said that he was not prepared to discuss the contents of the new material in any detail. “However, the substance of Dr Sprott’s and Mr Booth’s case was that because the cartridge case found in a flower border at the Crewe’s farm could not have contained either of the bullets found in the

bodies of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe, that cartridge case must have been planted.

“The new material contains allegations of the planting of evidence in several unrelated criminal investigations, from which it is inferred by Dr Sprott and Mr Booth that the cartridge case found in the flower border must also have been planted,” Mr Thomson said.

“The difficulty with this contention is that, as Dr Sprott and Mr Booth failed to demonstrate before five judges of the Court of Appeal that the cartridge case could not have been assembled with the fatal bullets, there is no reason to suppose that it could not have come to be where it was found, for that reason, as the Crown contended, that it was ejected from Thomas’s rifle,” Mr Thomson said. “Irrespective of emphasising the central difficulty in Dr Sprott’s theory, the report does not accept that there is any substance to the allegations of planting.” The contention that a watch found in Feilding was the watch which a jeweller mistakenly believed had been given to him for repair by Thomas was also considered. Thebe was further material from which it was inferred by Dr Sprott that the axle found uhder the body of Harvey Crewe could not have come from Thomas’s farm, Mr Thomson said. “These issues do not contain such substance as would warrant further investigation,” he said. The allegations made by Dr Sprott and Mr Booth amounted to a contention that key police and other Crown witnesses had conspired to convict an innocent man, Mr Thomson said. “The authors of the report consider that nothing put forward by Dr Sprott and Mr Booth supports such a grave contention, and that it is without foundation,” he said.