Three decisions 'at root of problems’

Press, 12 August 1980, Page 3

Three decisions 'at root of problems’

PA Auckland Three decisions made recently by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Arthur Allan Thomas case were “at the root of most of the problems that have beset the inquiry,”, the High Court at Auckland was told yesterday. , . The first of those decisions outlined the effect of the Thomas pardon and the second effectively said that the cartridge case, exhibit 350, had been loaded with a different bullet from those which had killed the Crewes, said Mr D. L. Tompkins, Q.C. ' ' • , j The third decision related to the refusal by the commission to lead certain evidence, including evidence to show, that Mr Thomas had been at the scene of the Crewes’ murder or evidence submitted at the trials to answer allegations that the police investigation had not been conducted in a proper manner. . < "They (the decisions) have affected the whole attitude of the commission, particu* larlv towards police witnesses and the relevancy and admissibility of evidence,” said Mr Tompkins. “They are one of the principal grounds for the allegation of bias by pre-determi-nation.” Mr Tompkins said that the

four parties which had asked for the Court’s review of the commission did not seek to avoid an inquiry into the actions of the police relating to the investigation of the Crewe murders. “They make the application to this Court in an endeavour to ensure that the inquiry will be carried out in a fair, proper, and object[ive manner uninfluenced by erroneous legal findings.” The applicants who brought the'proceedings are the Police Association, the Police Officers’ Guild, a former detective inspector, Bruce Thomas Newton Hutton, and Detective SeniorSergeant Murray Jeffries. In addition to a review of the commission’s decisions, they seek an order preventing it from continuing its inquiries and a declaration that the police should not be restricted in any way from pursuing such inquiries as they think fit into the deaths of the ’Crewes, whether or not those inquiries may tend to. implicate Mr Thomas. They say that the pardon does not restrict them from doing this. Named as respondents are Robert Lindsay Taylor, John Bowie pordon, and Allen Howard Johnston (first respondents), Arthur Allan Thomas, the Attorney-Gen-eral on behalf of the Department of Scientific and Indus-

trial Research, and the Police Department. The At-torney-General was struck out as fifth respondent. Messrs Tompkins and J. H. Blackmore appear for all the applicants, Dr G. P. Barton and Mr H. C. Keyte for the commission, and Messrs H. F. Murphy and N. I. Smith for Mr Arthur Allan Thomas. The hearing is before Mr Justice Moller, Mr Justice Holland, and Mr Justice Thorp. After hearing preliminary argument for several days on whether the Court has power to interfere with the commission, Mr Justice Moller said yesterday that the Court would reserve its decision on this point. It would continue to hear submissions on the merits of the applications.

The Court declined a request by Mr Murphy for an adjournment of “at least a week” to give him more time to prepare. Mr Justice Moller said he realised that counsel had been pressed for time but the case was getting the “highest priority because of its exceptional importance.” Dr Barton said that the commission would go into recess for two weeks after this week and that it would be.of considerable assistance to the commission to know of the Court’s position by September 1.