Lawver on trial

Press, 25 February 1981, Page 5

Lawver on trial

PA Auckland An Auckland lawyer under suspension by the Law Society is being tried before a High Court judge on three charges of forgery, two of uttering, and one of making a false declaration. John Malcolm Murfitt, aged 39, has pleaded not guilty on all counts. His trial before Mr Justice Thorp opened with submssion by counsel on whether the case came under the jurisdictoin of a High Court judge alone. Counsel for Murfitt, Mr R. L. McLaren, said, the provision for a judge alone to sit in a criminal trial resulted from the JBL case which lasted several months and which contained matters of commercial complexity. The presest case, he said, would be best heard without a lay jury because of its complexities' an H because publicity about the accused would, 'lead to prejudice in the minds of a jury. His Honour ruled that the case would proceed without a jury.

The procedure was still relatively novel, although it appeared nobody had turned a mind to the requirement for the Crown to be advised within 28 days of committal tp the High Court that a judge alone trial was elected.

Mr McLaren then submitted there was insufficient evidence for the accused to stand tiial and asked for the withdrawal of al! six charges against Murfitt. It was accpeted from the evidence, he said, that the documents in the court carried forged signatures. There was a startling gap in the evidence, however, as to the identity of the forger. The police had only guessed at the author and the accused strenuously denied he

was the author. The police had been unable to find evidence of misappropriation, said Mr McLaren, and it seemed the accused was being required to prove he was not the forger.

The prosecutor, Mr S. B. W. Grieve, said that there was circumstantial evidence that tended to implicate Murfitt. There was nothing in the evidence to prove a financial or economic motive, but both situations which led to the charges had a common .ctor of having pressur on Murfiit to have the law firm “housekeeping” done properly.

His Honour said it seemed there was circumstantial evidence which required "serious cossideration” and ruled that the trial should proceed.

Mr Grieve sajd that charges related to conveyancing transactions carried out for former clients ?f Murfitt.