Mr Hewson gives evidence

Press, 11 July 1980, Page 3

Mr Hewson gives evidence

PA Auckland A friend of Harvey Crewe told the Royal Commission of inquiry into the Thomas case yesterday that after giving evidence all gardens at the Crewe property had been sieve-searched by the police, the police made some attempt to discredit him.

Graeme Robert Hewson, a part-time farm manager, of Arthur’s Pass, said that at the time of the murders he was living at Woodville. As he and Harvey Crewe had been “good mates,” he travelled to Pukekawa.

He went to the police inquiry centre and was questioned extensively about the background, particularly of Mr Crewe.

It was suggested that he become a temporary manager at the Crewe farm. He returned to Woodville to settle his affairs and returned to Pukekawa.

When a permanent farm manager was appointed he (Mr Hewson) again went back to Woodville. It was there he heard the news of the discovery of Jeanette Crewe’s body. Back at Pukekawa, he met Inspector Hutton. "Myself and Hutton had been good mates,” he told the commission, “He suggested I might help by looking for a .22 shell he believed would be around the house,” Mr Hewson said that at one point he went with a police team to Tuakau to look for a sieve. At Tuakau they went to what he thought was a council yard. The council yard did r.ot have the right type of sieve. They went to another yard and obtained a sieve there.

The team, headed by Detective Sergeant Jefferies, went back to the Crewe property and it was decided the gardens had to be sievesearched.

Mr Hewson said, “All the garden areas were completely sieve-searched. We had to take the plants out, shake out the dirt, and put them in a heap. It was all done very carefully and properly.” He said that at the first trial he thought the police had “the right man.” He realised something strange was going on when the police asserted that one area

of garden had not been sieve-searched. Mr Hewson said that at one point, while he was digging, he looked down and saw something. He thought he had found the shell and became very excited, but it was a complete cartridge. “It was a joke,” he said. “The boys (the police) laughed and had me on.”

The witness said that as well as helping to sieve the gardens, he went on the roof to look in the guttering and he even looked in the water tank.

The next day he helped in the search of a paddock near the house. Mr Hewson said that he subsequently read a “New Zealand Herald” booklet on the Thomas case and saw a photograph of the garden in question at the Crewe home. “That brought things to a head in my mind,” he said. “I had got on very well with the police until I came forward and said I helped to sieve-search it.”

He approached Mr P. B. Temm, Q.C., who was then conducting the case for Mr Thomas, and he gave evidence at the first referral, when, he alleged, the Crown prosecutor, (Mr D, W. Morris), “tried to discredit me — but I had better not go any further.” Cross-examined by Mr R. L. Fisher, for the police, witness said he could remember details clearly because it -was his “best mate” who had been killed.

Mr Fisher: In an affidavit, you said the sieve was picked up at the Tuakau Borough Council yard? Witness: Yes, but you are trying to trip me up like David Morris. I read the sieve had come from another place in booklets and papers. But at the time you thought it was the borough council? — Yes.

He could not, said Mr Hewson, remember the order in which the gardens were sieved, but the important point was that they were all done.

He was, he said, mistaken about where one or two beds were when he gave evidence at the first referral, but he was not mistaken about all gardens being sieved.

He did not know about the discovery of the shell case (exhibit 350) until the middle of 1971. Mr Hewson said that after he came forward about the sieve search of the gardens, the police did their best to discredit him. “Thank goodness they didn’t have any luck,” he said. There was, he said, a dispute between himself and the trustees of the Crewe estate about a dog. He was not approached by Inspector Hutton about the matter. The dispute occurred after

he came forward about the gardens. His Honour: Mr Fisher, are you trying to say the witness came forward because the police took a particular side in a dispute?

Mr Fisher: The witness has said' that it was only after he approached Mr Temm about the sieve search that there was a chilling of relations between himself and the police. But there was a dispute over dogs before. His Honour: He has denied that. Mr Fisher: It is a matter of credibility as to why he is now giving his evidence.

His Honour: Supposing you get an admission from the witness that, because the police took a particular side in a dispute, he decided to give evidence. That would not affect his credibility unless the evidence he gave was false. To Mr P. A. Williams, for Mr Thomas, Mr Hewson said that at the second trial the Crown prosecutor (Mr Morris) alleged that he was a dog thief but he had never been, charged with stealing dogs. Mr Hewson said he was a friend of Harvey Crewe, and his motive in going to Pukekawa had been to help the police find the killer of his friend. If he had had a bias, it was towards the police. After he had come forward about the sieve search, the police went not .only to his wife but to several of his friends at Woodville checking on him, and the police made some attempt to discredit him. Detective Inspector Michael Charles, whose evidence was postponed to allow Mr Hewson to give evidence, resumed giving his evidence late yesterday afternoon. He said that on October 27, 1970, he and Inspector Parkes went to the Crewe farm. Their instructions were to sieve-search a flower bed against a fence opposite the kitchen as far as they believed a shell case would be ejected from a rifle fired through, a louvre window. Witness said his understanding was that the search was left to their discretion. He did not remember any specific distances being mentioned. Both he and Inspector Parkes were at that stage in the armed offenders squad. Mr Charles said they removed and examined the vegetation. He then used a sieve, but the soil was stickv and damp and it would not go through it. They discarded the sieve and Inspector Parkes proceeded him with a twopronged fork. Witness followed, searching the soil with his fingers.