Fitzgerald evidence to be in secret

Press, 17 September 1980, Page 2

Fitzgerald evidence to be in secret

PA Wellington Evidence by James Maurice Fitzgerald and Audrey Fitzgerald to the Commission of Inquiry into the Marginal Lands Board loan row will be heard in secret, the commission’s chairman ruled yesterday. Mr B. D. Inglis, Q.C., opening the first day of formal hearings, also ruled that in spite of a request from the board, the commission would not seek any changes in its terms of reference.

Mr Inglis said Mr Fitzgerald had been charged with a criminal offence, had pleaded not guilty, and had elected trial by jury. It would be quite wrong if anything was said or reported during the inquiry which could prejudice his chances of a fair trial.

He said he was sure the news media would understand the position and respect Mr Fitzgerald’s right to a fair trial.

He also said that if the couple were called as witnesses before the inquiry their evidence would be heard “behind closed doors.” Neither the public nor the news media would be admitted.

If Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald were asked any questions of an incriminatory tendency they would be entitled to their statutory right lo refuse to answer. No inference adverse to the witnesses was to be drawn if they exercised this right.

It might alsd~be necessary, Mr Inglis said, to hear other evidence in camera. A transcript of this would be kept in safe custody and not made available until the police proceedings had been disposed of.

Copies of evidence to be presented to the commission would be made available only to the three commissioners and counsel initially, because of the danger that such material might inadvertently contain matter which could prejudice Mr Fitzgerald’s right to a fair trial. Once this evidence had been read into the record it would be available for public inspection but the commission reserved the right to excise any passages which might prejudice Mr Fitzgerald.

Mr Inglis also warned the news media that he might have to issue retrospective suppression orders oh evidence once it had been presented because it might prejudice Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald. However, Mr Inglis said, the commission of inquiry should be conducted in public as much as possible because the matter is of public interest. *

Referring to the board’s request that a case be taken to the High Court to rule on the scope of the terms of reference, Mr Inglis said this had been declined. It was a matter for the executive, not the High Court. Because of publicity, the Executive was no doubt well aware of his ruling that the Fitzgeralds’ statutory declaration was not to be part of the inquiry and there was no evidence that the Executive disagreed with this ruling.

However, he agreed with counsel for Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald, Dr G. P. Barton, that there was some dispute about terms of reference and whether the commission was empowered to look into the question had the Lands Board exceeded its jurisdiction.

This was not a matter for the commission but for the High Court, the Fitzgeralds believed, Dr Barton said. Mr Inglis said all commissioners considered it (would be appropriate to approach the High Court for a ruling on this matter.