Two-week break in Thomas inquiry

Press, 16 August 1980, Page 3

Two-week break in Thomas inquiry

PA Auckland The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case yesterday heard its last witness for two weeks. It will not sit again until September 1.

The adjournment had been announced at the beginning

of the hearing in June. John Chester Pike, of Wellington, senior legal adviser to the Justice Department, outlined events leading up to the first referral after Mr Thomas’s first trial.

It was the view of the department in spite of the conclusion by Sir George McGregor that there had been no injustice, that there was sufficient evidence to justify a referral to the Court of Appeal. This resulted in the second trial.

After. the second appeal, which was dismissed, a petition- was prepared by Pat Booth, a journalist, and an industrial arid consulting

chemist, Dr T. J. Sprott. Mr Pike said he considered a report , with, supporting affidavits arising from the petition, and a report was prepared which was made available to the Minister of Justice. Witness said he did not think it necessary to obtain technical evidence iindepem dent- of Dr Sprott! arid the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

The department treated the D.S.I.R. as an independent body, responsible both to the needs of the Crown and the defence.

It became clear, witness said, that there wmuld be a second referral because of! certain factors, including public' pressure. It was, however, considered unlikely that there would be a third trial because some of the crucial

.exhibits had been destroyed.) The Justice Department was also concerned about the time that had elapsed since) the events giving rise, to the j case. I

The department accepted that an evidential burden lay on Mr Thomas. The Court of Appeal, witness said, made its decision on the second referral, and the department had nothing more to do with the case until 1976, when Dr Sprott and Mr Booth supplied a

dossier making allegations about certain named police officers to the Minister of Justice. Witness said he made investigations. There was a subsequent recommendation that the

matter be investigated by the Solicitor-General and the Secretary for Justice. On March 17, 1977, there was a report that no further action be taken on Mr Thomas’s conviction. Dr Sprott .and Mr Booth were not supplied with a copy of

this. The recommendation made to the Government was that there would be a continual to-ing and fro-ing of argu-

ments if the report were made available to them and that the situation did not detract from the need for finalitv in the case. Witness-said that the allegations by Mr Booth and Dr Sprott of misconduct were that a shell case, exhibit 350, came to be in the Crewe garden because of actions taken by certain police officers.

Mr Pike agreed it was a

fair statement that the attitude taken by himself, the Solicitor-General, and the Secretary for Justice was that the Court of Appeal

had dismissed the exhibit 350 issue, “and that was that.” Dr Sprott’s assertions were considered illogical. “It was his scientific theory I did not think was particularly tenable,” said the witness. Mr Crew: If the D.S.I.R.

.Ihad stated in 1977 what it ; | has stated to this commission, that Dr Sprott was • i right, it is a reasonable as- : | sumption that Mr Thomas i would have been released

from prison at that time, isn’t it?

Witness: No, I don’t think he would ,have been released on that basis. We would have had to think of some possible judicial mechanism leading to this. Do you not agree with me it looked a little unfair that the police had material from Sprott and Booth and they were given a copy of the report? — We didn’t think it was unfair because there was to be no further action in respect of it. The decision had been taken by the Cabb net.

To Mr P. A. Williams (for Mr Thomas) Mr Pike said he agreed exhibit 350 was a crucial exhibit. The witness said he drafted the terms for the second referral, asking the court to consider if it had been established by Mr Thomas that neither of the bullets that killed the Crewes could have been assembled with 350. Mr Justice Taylor: Supposing it was suggested there was a reasonable possibility that 350 did not form part* of the bullet that killed the Crewes, and the answer w‘as yes, 'Thomas would have been pardoned? Witness: Yes, I don’t think they could have done anything else than do that.

Mr Williams: But in the question to the court, the onus was placed on Mr Thomas. Do you find it disturbing that the question was framed' in a way grossly, manifestly unfair to Mr Thomas?

Witness: I don’t accept that. Mr Williams said he agreed that everybody at the second referral was under the impression the agreement was that the matter would be dealt with on the balance of probabilities, but the Court of Appeal felt bound by the strict wording of the Order-in-Council.