Mixed reaction to Royal Pardon

Press, 19 December 1979, Page 6

Mixed reaction to Royal Pardon

PA Auckland The Crown Prosecutor in the two Arthur Allan Thomas trials, Mr D. S. Morris, said yesterday that he had no feelings one way or the other about the Royal Pardon granted to Mr Thomas. However, Mr Thomas’s lawyer, at his second trial, Mr K. Ryan, expressed both praise and criticism. Mr Morris said: “I am not saying that I agree with the pardon, but you have to live under the system. “The case has gone the gambit of various judicial in-! quiries. 1 look on this as another court. “These fellows, in their wisdom, have decided another way.” Mr Morris saw no need for a committee of inquiry. “I don’t think there was anything wrong with the police evidence,” he said. Mr Ryan praised the loyalty of the Thomas family and campaign workers, but criticised the judicial system, the Crown, and the police for withholding information from the defence. Mr Ryan said that he learnt for the first time from the Adams-Smith report about the evidence of a takeaway shop proprietor, Mr C. Massey, who said that he had sold flounder and chips to the Crewes on the day they were killed.

it "I don't know how much i! other information was withs I held from the defence,” Mr 1' Ryan said. >! He said that he was never rjtold about a letter from the i' foreman of the jury to the second-trial judge indicating t that the foreman knew an , important Crown witness, i Detective .1. Hughes. “That type of conduct has : tainted this case right from : the beginning,” Mr Ryan : said. Mr Ryan paid tribute to the i Thomas family for its unwavering faith in Mr ■ Thomas’s innocence, and to Mr P. Booth and Dr T. J.! ' Sprott for their investigative I work. The pardon showed what could be done when people spoke up against an injustice, he said. “Evil only triumphs when good people say and do nothing.” Mr Ryan said that that had been proved by the Thomas family, the retrial committee, and the investigators. Dr Sprott, he said, had I been subjected to much abuse, professionally and personally. “He showed that the cartridge case, a keystone of the Crown case, was tainted evidence.” Mr Ryan also said that but (for the efforts of campaignling journalists such as Mr

bj Booth. Mr Thomas might -jnever hate been pardoned. t, Mr P. B. Temm, Q.C.. who defended Mr Thomas at the r first trial, said that the Govsi emment had no alternative “'but to grant a pardon. ?■ Many people who had i examined the case were left . in doubt. Mr Temm said that he had 5 always had doubts about the i cartridge-case evidence, and > believed that it was "meant i to he found.” 5 Sir Trevor Henry, the •■judge who presided over the "I first trial of Mr Thomas, said yesterday that he did not ;agree “with what had happened.” ! “But it is no province of mine now,” he said. Sir Trevor said that he did not wish to make anv further comment about the case. Sir Clifford Perry, who presided over the second trial, declined to comment. Both are now retired in Auckland. The police would continue investigating the murder of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe if new' evidence was put before them, said the Commissioner of Police (Mr R. J. Walton) yesterday. However, Mr Walton declined to comment on the decision of the Cabinet to pardon Mr Thomas.