Questioning at inquiry defended

Press, 16 August 1980, Page 3

Questioning at inquiry defended

"A Auckland The questioning of tough policemen whose actions were under examination did not call for gentleness, one of the counsel to the Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case, Mr H. C. Keyte, told the High Court at Auckland yesterday. “There are some' policemen who are at the very centre of the investigation and it must be expected that their actions will , besscrutinised very closely,” he said. The High .Court ,is reviewing the decisions -of the commission iat the’ request of the Police Association; the Police -Officers’ Guild; a former detective inspector, Bruce Thomas Newton Hutton; and Detective SeniorSergeant Murray Jeffries. The decisions relate to the commission’s interpretation of Mr Thomas’s pardon, its refusal to allow the police to lead certain evidence, and its finding that the cartridge case, exhibit 350, could not have contained any of the bullets which killed Harvey I and Jeanette Crewe. The three members of the! commission are first re-1 spondents and Mr Thomas isi the second. The hearing, be-j fore Mr Justice Moller, Mr Justice Holland, and Mr Justice Thorp, is expected to continue until Tuesday.Appearing as counsel are Mr D. L. Tompkins, Q.C. and Mr J. H. Blackmore for the applicants; Dr G. P. Barton and Mr Keyte for the commission; and Mr N. 1. Smith and Mr H. F. Murphy for Mr Thomas.

.Mr Keyte said that in its July 23 statement the commission had excluded evidence of motive and about ■wire which had been tied to the bodies. The prosecution view was that all the circumstantial evidence had to be looked at to demonstrate] whether Mr Thomas was re-; sponsible for the death of! the Crewes. i What the commission was saying was that it was, nevertheless, starting from the proposition that its term of reference was whether

shell case 350 had been planted by the police in the garden. The motive and wire] did not bear on what the! commission was trying to] find out: they were too remote to be helpful to the issue.

If the Court ruled that the commission was wrong in excluding evidence it would] .be unfortunate. Counsel could spend four days going through the evidence with the Com t but in the end It] would be a “pale reflection”; of what had come before the commission. It had heard much evidence and had come to a clear view. The issue was whether the commission had the right nut to hear evidence in particular areas.

What was fair had to be looked at in the light of what the commission was and what it was doing. Its only function was to inquire and report. Its duty to fair-, ness was quite different from what it would be for, say, a town-planning or licensing tribunal.

The commission had ,no power of decision. Its function was inquisitorial in nature and its duty was to seek the truth. It did not leave it to the participants or anybody else to decide what evidence would be called or what it would look at. Within the terms of reference, there was a wide-ran-ging inquiry to be made.