‘Extraordinary latitude’ at Thomas inquiry

Press, 15 August 1980, Page 3

‘Extraordinary latitude’ at Thomas inquiry

PA' Auckland! Counsel appearing for theji Thomas Commission of ln-[i quiry in the High Court said: yesterday that all parties’; represented at the inquiry:; had been given an “extra-■ ordinary measure of latitude.” ; This extended to matters! such as closed-session dis-1 missions with the commis-j sion, making submissions,! cross-examining witnesses, I and raising objections. L Dr G. P. Barton said all; parties had received far; more latitude than the rules ; of natural justice and fair-j ness required. He was answering what he termed a: “two-pronged attack” which; has been brought against the: commission in the High! Court.

The first prong was an al-1 legation of bias against the commission, and rhe second the denial of a fair oppor- 1 . tunity . for the police to present their case. These relate to the com-i mission’s interpretation ofMr Thomas’s pardon, its re-i fusal to allow the police to! nresent certain evidence, and its finding that the cartridge; case, exhibit 350, could not! have contained any of the bullets which killed Harveyi and Jeanette Crewe. The. three members of the] commission are first re-i spondents and Mr Thomas is second respondent. The hear- 1 ing is before Mr ’ Justice! [Moller, Mr Justice Holland.! and Mr Justice Thorn. Dr Barton said the com-] mission had to tread a delicate line between complying] with the pardon on the one hand and receiving evidence] which might be relevant to (he terms of reference on I the other. . 1 He said the police had' maintained they should be] allowed to present evidence] concerning the wire and the' alleged motive of Mr: Thomas for committing the] murders. But if that were! i the case, he said, and the! commission found the evidence was probative, it would have to report to the Governor-General that Mr Thomas did commit the murders. “The whole purpose of the pardon would then be frustrated.” Dr Barton said that as Mr Thomas had been “deemec . never to'have'' committed the [loffence” he must be treatec ias: innocent; s :■ “It also- follows that the commission cannot lawful-

lly receive evidence tending ito show that Mr Thomas did [commit the offence. I “In effect, the applicants ’are getting close to seeking [a general right of appeal .against the decisions of the I commission that they do not !accept.” he told the Court. I Earlier yesterday, counsel [ for the applicants. Mr J. H. [ Blackmore sought a brief adj inurnment after Mr Justice ] Holland said he was “very 'disturbed” about a matter [they were raising. ! Mr Blackmore was making -submissions on the questionling of certain witnesses by the commission’s chairman, Mr Justice Taylor. j Mr Justice Holland said ; the Court was being asked ■to rule that the chairman of [ the commission was being

unfair in his questioning. 1 “I understood that thei-e [was no challenge on the 'wav the chairman had personally conducted his questioning — that there was a [ challenge on the rulings,” [his Honour said. i Mr Justice Moller said it i!was a “back-door way” of introducing information to ;the Proceedings. I After the adjournment. Mr ■ Blackmore said the only reaIson he would refer to certain passages of the questioning would be to show 'the commission’s attitude in respect of the “innocence of [Mr Thomas and the guilt of ithe police.” I The High Court hearing is [expected to continue into next week.