Inquiry urged to be charitable

Press, 24 September 1980, Page 3

Inquiry urged to be charitable

PA Auckland Counsel for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Mr R. P. Smellie. Q.C., yesterday urged the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case to bear in mind that its findings could destroy reputations built up over long periods.

Mr Smellie said he accepted that, if it were the commission’s view, it was its duty to make harsh judgments on any department or its officers. But it should, he submitted, hesitate long and consider with anxious care before making findings that anybody had been guilty of impropriety or dishonesty. “If you are in any doubt, and I submit that in many instances you must be, you should take the safe and charitable course of finding if mistakes were made they were errors of judgment. “I urge this on you most' seriously. You have a terrible weapon in your Hands. Do not use it unless you' have to,” Mr Smellie said.’

In reply, the chairman. Mr Justice Taylor, said the commission was well aware of the challenges and gravity involved in some of the findings.

“We do not stand here to irrationally’’ displace people’s reputations without very careful consideration,” he said.

Earlier in his ‘ final address, Mr Smellie had said that Dr D. F.‘ Nelson’s tests on the bullet which killed Jeanette Crewe had been confirmed in every respect by. British Home Office forensic experts. The question had now arisen as to whether Dr Nelson should have gone further and explained to the jury not only’ that he could not; exclude the Thomas rifled but that the probabilities I against the bullet’s having j come from the Thomas rifle' were five to one. Mr Smellie said Dr Nelson! had learned through hard! experience that judges could! sometimes be impatient with over-detailed explanations. Dr Nelson was painstaking and meticulous even to the point of being tedious.

If the commission came to the conclusion that the fur-, ther evidence of the probability against the Thomas rifle’s being the . murder weapon should have been brought out, then if had

been an error of judgment f by Dr Nelson. • i “In all the circumstances! it would be a grave injustice ; to him to find that he dis-1 honestly, as a matter of bias: against' the accused, with-i held that information,” Mr. Smellie said. The amount of scientific; investigation called for in the Thomas case was very! much greater than normal,; he said. It would be unfair! to the D.S.I.R. to concen-i irate only on the aspects! which had been subjected to; inquiry’ and lose sight of; those which were com-' petently and impartially i attended to. . ! “Over all, I submit, the; record is a commendable; one,” said Mr Smellie. He said t h: e; D.S.l.R.witnesses had shown! a willingness to listen care-I fully and with an open mind; to the evidence and use the; opportunity to investigate; further.

Mr Smellie paid tribute to the work of Dr T. J. Sprott, who had campaigned on behalf of Mr Thomas, challenging the findings of the DtS.I.R. . ' Dr' Sprott’s dedication to the job and his development of the cartridge case categories invoked the admiration of any impartial ovserver, said Mr Smellie.

With the approval of the D.5.1.R., Mr Smellie said, it was appropriate that, if special damay’es .were paid, an award should be made to Dr Sprott for his time, effort, and skill.

Continuing his evidence yesterday. Dr Nelson said he had examined exhibit 350, a shell case found on the Crewe property and 343, a cartridge found at the Thomas farm. . Exhibit 350; had been fired, and 343 un-| fired, to the best of his ■knowledge. ! He would probably’ have I destroyed the prime of 343 ! by discharging it to make it safe.

Witness said that Detective Keith was waiting while he completed his examination. although the officer might have gone away.

His Honour: You know Keith has sworn that at the time he picked up 343, it was fired from a rifle. It would be quite impossible for you to discharge it if it had been. Witness: There is a conflict there. I believe Keith is j wrong. i

Why’ did you state you received from Keith a fired

r shell case on November 19, i 1970? — I don’t know. To ! the best of my knowledge it I was an unfired bullet and ! shell case and I discharged the primer. 1 don’t recall any conversation between myself and Keith. I am not sure whether he was present or not when I examined it. Dr Nelson said he had not excluded the possibility that exhibit 350 contained a pattern 8 bullet — the type that killed the Crewes. He said the D.S.I.R. was a separate Government'department. “We are not in the; police force.” he said “We give evidence for.- other Gov-' ernment departments.”

His Honour: You have never been called as a wit-ness-except by’ the police?

Witness: I do remember being called as a witness for the defence in the 19605.

For the defence to procure you they have to get permission from the police? — Yes. I assure you on many occasions we have found things the police did not like us to find.