Police had copy of jury list several weeks before trial

Press, 15 August 1980, Page 3

Police had copy of jury list several weeks before trial

PA Auckland The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case began yesterday to hear evidence on matters related to the juries at the two trials of Arthur Allan Thomas, and Crown investigations into new evidence. Mr M. Crew, counsel assisting the commission, said evidence would be directed to terms four and five of the terms of reference. both of which heavily involved the Justice Department. He said that a copy of the jury panel list had to be made available to all parties three days before juries were selected. It was his understanding that evidence by the Justice Department would be that, because of an unfortunate administrative oversight, the police had a copy of the jury list for the second trial of Mr Thomas some substantial time before the defence. He said that all those who appeared on the juries for the two trials had been'got in touch with and asked whether they had been approached by the Crown, the police, or the defence. “In .the vast majority ot cases the answer has, of course, been negative.” Mr Crew told the commission. The third element of the term of reference four was whether anything was done otherwise than in accordance with normal practice, or was improper or calculated ti prejudice the fairness of tht trial. Evidence would be callee in two main areas. The first related to any personal con tact between persons actu ally selected for the jury anc those engaged in the case whether as counsel or wit nesses, or merely supporter; for the Crown or defence The second was the custody and control of the juries during the trials. Mr Crew said he believec both juries were kept to gether for the duration o: the trials. The terms of reference, h( said, specifically excluder any inquiry into the conduc of the trial, and he sub mitted that that clearly pre vented the commission fron inquiring into what went 01 in the jury room. Term five, he said, relate, to whether the Crown or th police made an adequate in vestigation into new matter which might have had bearing on the murder c the Crewes, or the trial, anany relevant facts which be came known to the Crowi or police which were no known to them at the tim of the trial.. He said that, at a late

stage evidence would becalled from the police about the investigation after the trials and any relevant facts! that became known to them.: Murray James Hawkins, registrar at the High Court at Auckland, said that in 1973 he was the deputy registrar.' Asked' by" Mr Crew, "Would you agree the police had access to the jury, list for both trials well before the defence could have got it,” the witness replied, “It appears the police had access to the full panel apparently four and possibly up to six weeks before the trial.” Mr Hawkins said that until 1960, after the Justice Department had compiled the jury .panel, those on it Were notified by the police when to attend court. After amendments to the legislation, after 191,0. potential jurors were notified by registered letter. Because of an administrative oversight the police continued to have access to the panels six weeks before trials. Mr Hawkins said that 'so far as he was concerned there was nothing sinister in . this. The matter was raised during the trial of Dr W. B. Sutch in 1975. Since then, jury panels had only been made available to the parties three days before the trial. (The second trial of Mr Thomas was in 1973). ■Mr Hawkins said that jurors for the various trials 'were selected from the jury panel list for that week. A jury list was produced by Mr R. L. Fisher, for the police, which he said was a list of jury members relating to the second trial. Beside ■certain names were notations including “ship deserter, 1960.” “OK,” and “Slow 'thinking.” Charles Mulcahy, a hearing officer for the Accident ■ Compensation Commission, said that from September, 1972, to July 1977, he was ' registrar and sheriff at the then Supreme Court at Auckland. He signed the - summonses for the jurors after the preparation of the jury panel lict for the week March 26, 1973, the week i Mr Thomas’s second trial j began. I He said the list was preypared six weeks before the .'second trial. At the time it s |was prepared, the Court of p Appeal had not decided that fithere would be a second j j trial.. -i He said that had he II known personally that the tl police were getting a virgin si copy of the jury panel list, ihe would have stopped it. rj Mr Justice Taylor: We

have been told that up to 19(50 the police had to have the first list because it was their job to serve the summonses. When the act was amended in 1960 to provide for summons by letter, the practice of sending the list to the police continued because nobody altered the instruction that it should be, until 1975. Witness: I would not have expected the instruction to be carried. out. because it was incorrect. You mean the police were not given the list? — I cannot say definitely. Mr Mulcahy said that as registrar it was impossible for him to supervise every-' thing his staff did. He set up a system of work and expected it to be completed. He expected his staff to carrv out instructions. His Honour: You are being asked about the office •for which you were responsible. If there is an.instruction that the list be sent to the police, presumably that would be done? Witness: if the clerk had done his job, yes. Mr Mulcahy said he remembered being told the gist of ait article in a magazine called ‘■Rolling- Stone,” saying that the police had got the jury list for the second trial before the defence He spoke to some of his senior staff and said that, it a virgin copy of the jury panel list was' going to the police it was a nonsense that had to stop. His Honour: Were you aware of 'he instruction in 1973? — It was after the second Thomas trial, I think it was before September perhaps June. If the police were getting preference with the jurj panels, that would not be e v e n-handed treatment ■would it? — No. Shown a brief of his evidence. Mr Mulcahy said ii j was his true recollection ot the matter. Mr Crew: Going down to the foot of the page, it is your evidence: It seems very /likely that the police got a . copy of the initial jury list .six weeks before the second' ;Thomas trial, as.the instructions said they should. Witness: Yes, I cannot gt :anv further than that. i Why didn’t you tell yout ■ head office in a report in September, 1973, that the Crown -had had preference in the .matter of access to the names jof the jury panel? — I canI not say why. Maybe the matter was not raised, or maybe II had dealt with the problem (long before September. I canmot remember any .more thar ifhat.

I His Honour: The report: reads that so far as the jury [list is concerned, Mr Kevin: Ryan (counsel for Mr Thomas) asked for something, [he was not entitled to, a jury! ‘list earlier than usual. As far as the Crown list is con-; icerned it says nothing? — ! Looking back on the matter, jny report was on some a!le-i igations by Mr Ryan about being denied his rights, noth-, ing more. Mr Crew: Did Mr Ryan visit you some time after the : trial and have a discussion with you about the jury list? ■ — He could have approached me. i You know Mr Ryan. If he ’said that had happened, : would you believe him? — In ;this instance not willingly. To Mr P. A. Williams (for'. Mr Thomas), the witness said: that during the second trial the jury had stayed at the ■Station Hotel. There were allegations about ' the jury, which he and his staff invest!-! :gated and found to be un-i founded. j Mr Williams: 1 put it to! [you there was a special room; at the hotel used exclusivelyj by the police? — That’s new i to me. 1 > Mr Mulcahy, said he never] went on any of the jury’s: outings. It was accompanied, by an officer of the court and [two policemen. ! Mr Williams: You have told 'us that in 1973 you became aware of improper practice iover the jury lists? — Yes, 'and 1 took action. I.saw the 'staff connected with jury] summonses, the deputy cri-l minal registrar and, perhaps,; Mr Hawkins. I said if a vir-i gin jury panel was going to the police, it. was going to] stop forthwith. ' Since then, I the defence and prosecution: have been granted equal rights over access to jury] ■ rolls. I