Police 'unable to answer allegations'

Press, 13 August 1980, Page 3

Police 'unable to answer allegations'

PA Auckland The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Arthur Allan Thomas case had effectively prevented the police from answering allegations of impropriety made against them, the High Court at Auckland was told yesterday. Mr D. L. Tompkins, Q.C., said this had been brought about by the commission’s interpretation of the pardon given to Mr Thomas and its refusal to allow’ certain evidence to be led by the police. He said parts of the commission’s ruling on the effects of the pardon amounted to an irrebuttable presumption that Mr Thomas was innocent.

“Once this is accepted by the commission, then the primary defence of the police to the impropriety allegation ... is excluded,” he said. In considering whether to hear evidence, and assessing its relevance, the pardon should be disregarded, Mr Tompkins submitted. The police, he said, had been denied the opportunity of leading all the evidence relevant to establishing that they did not plant the cartridge case. However, Mr Tompkins said, he accepted without qualification that the commission was not to inquire into the guilt or innocence of Mr Thomas.

“We are not seeking to put Thomas on trial,” he told the Court. “We are seeking to prove the.absence of impropriety (on the part of the police).” To do this it was necessary for the commission to hear all the evidence relevant to the issue.

“The commission appears to have adopted the attitude that evidence that may directly prove Thomas’s presence at the scene is admissible, but circumstantial evidence, such as evidence relating to motive and the wire, cannot be called.”

Mr Tompkins submitted

this was an illogical and unjustifiable distinction. The four applicants who have brought the proceedings before the court are the police Association, the Police Officers’ Guild, former Detec-tive-Inspector B. T. N. Hutton and Detective Senior-Ser-geant M. Jeffries. The hearing is before Mr Justice Moller, Mr Justice Holland, and Mr Justice Thorp. In addition to a review of certain of the commission’s decisions, they seek an order preventing it from continuing its inquiries. They also want a High Court declaration that the police should not be restricted in any way from pursuing such inquiries as they think into the deaths of Harrey and Jeanette Crewe, irrespective of whether those inquiries may tend to implicate Mr Thomas. They allege the pardon does not restrict them from doing this. The three members of the commission are first respondents, and Mr Thomas is second respondent. Mr Tompkins and Mr J. H. Blackmore appear for all four applicants; Dr G. P. Barton and Mr H. C. Keyte for the commission; and Mr N. I. Smith for Mr Thomas.

Yesterday, Mr Thomas’s other counsel, Mr H. I. Murphy. withdrew from the proceedings, saying he had not had enough time to prepare his case on the merits of the applications. He said he could not perform the duty he owed to the Court and his clients within the present time framework. A second application by him for an adjournment had been refused.

The Court declined to hear from Mr P. A. Williams, who has been appearing as counsel for Mr Thomas at the Royal Commission, but hf d not previously appeared m the High Court action.