Police counsel seek details

Press, 23 July 1980, Page 2

Police counsel seek details

PA.. vZ Auckland Counsel for the ■ police. at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the -Thomas case yesterday expressed concern that they would be unprepared if new evidence was given, of which.-they were unaware. The matter was one of several’ raised by Mr J. S. Henry, Q.C., and his junior, Mr R. L. Fisher, who asked to be given particulars of evidence related to the police. Mr Henry had said earlier that, counsel for the police had not made any submissions concerning exhibit 350, the cartridge case found at the Crewe property. ' The chairman of the commission (Mr Justice Taylor) said he believed that as far as the scientific evidence related to cartridge cases was concerned, counsel for the police ,were content to have the matter left to Mr R. P. Smellie and his junior, representing the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The commission had now identified exhibit 350 and'ruled that it had never formed part of the cartridge that had killed Harvey Crewe.

Mr Henry: Can I ask what the consequences are? His Honour: There is no evidence that Thomas was ever there. That is one consequence that could follow. His Honour said the trials had been based on the shell case 350’s being, part of the cartridge that- had killed Harvey Crewe. The commission’s identification of it meant that 350 could be anything. Mr Henry: 1 take it from that that the commission will not receive evidence to show that Thomas was on the property. His Honour: We will receive all evidence relevant to the issues that arise under the terms of refer ence. Mr Fisher said the two main probabilities of how the shell case had come to be where it had been were that it had come from -Mr Thomas or that it had been planted by the police. Counsel for the police wished to elicit evidence that directly or indirectly placed Mr Thomas at the Crewe farm. Mr Henry said there were other matters he wished to raise. The first related to the question of police counsel being given particulars of; any suggested impropriety on|

; the part of the police. He sought a direction that, counsel be advised of details of ; alleged improprieties so that • they could be prepared. His Honqur: 1 can’t give ■ that ruling when we will: 1 have some ground for saying ■ whether or hot there had 1 been impropriety. The' proper inquiry would ; be to Mr H. C. Keyte, coun- ’ sei assisting the commission. 'Mr Henry said counsel for the .police wanted to be in a ; position to examine properly witnesses giving testimony related to the police. A witness was coming , from Australia to give evidence on! Saturday and he wanted to! know what suggestions of] impropriety this witness I would make and what he; would say. His Honbur: Well,.you can , read what he said in other ! places. He gave evidence in two trials. His Honour said Mr Henry , would be given every opportunity. if the witness . introduced evidence that counsel knew nothing about. Mr Henry said the second matter he wished to raise was the" allegation of telephone tapping by the police, i Mr-.Keyte ;said he had I indicated to Mr Henry that!

5 the only instance was that - stated by the industrial and f consulting chemist, Dr T. J. t Sprott, who alleged that his (telephone had been tapped. >! Mr Henry - said his next [lissue was the bloodstain in JMr Len Demler’s car. ji. Mr Keyte said he had referred to the bloodstain to I establish whether the police ‘ had pursued their inquiries ’ into this far enough. . Mr Henry also raised the • matter of the axle recovered , from Harvey Crewe’s body. , He said it had been suggested that the axle presented as an exhibit in court ihad not been the one that ‘ihad been recovered. !| Mr Keyte said that Mr i Henry had been given particulars of allegations of im--1 poropriety in a letter. Percy Brant, • a retired Army officer and firearms instructor, of Pokeno, told the commission that on February's, 1971, he had taken part in a reconstruction of the feasibility of shooting through louvre, windows atj the Crewe house. He said that the position needed- to do so had been awkward and had, imposed much strain; ■ He had given evidence at the first trial of-Mr Thomas. I He remembered that, while

resting alone in the witness room, Inspector Bruce Hutton, the policeman who had headed the Crewe murder investigation, had entered. It was the first time that witness had spoken to him Mr Brant: He said, “You are Brant.” I said, “Yes, you are Hutton.” He said, “Yes. I am in charge of this case.” I said, “I gathered that.” He said he didn’t come into the courtroom while I was giving evidence as he did not want to upset me. I thought; that rather strange and II said, “You wouldn’t have upset me.” The conversation lulled for a moment. I said, “What do you think of Thomas?” He said, “We don’t know whether the — is guilty or not.” He said he couldn’t go along with the police theory that it was done through the louvre! window. Hutton said, “As you know, these louvre windows would have been shut on a dark, stormy night.” I said that had. crossed my (mind. There was a lull again and I said, “What are you pushing it for?” meaning why are you pursuing Thomas? He said, “Well there has been a meeting of heads who have examined the evidence available, and they think this is it.”