Evidence ban lifted

Press, 17 March 1982, Page 14

Evidence ban lifted

PA Wellington The Court of Appeal has revoked an order which it made on September 2. 1981, forbidding the publication of some of the evidence in the trial on a charge Of murder of Darrell Patai Wilson, aged 18. of Foxton. The Court said that the evidence was: held to have been procured by police methods which w r ere such that the evidence should never have come into existence.

On December 18. 1981, Mr Wilson was acquitted on a charge of murdering a pensioner, Lorna Florence Robinson, aged .74, six months after the jury at his first trial had found him guilty. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment on September 2. had allowed -Mr Wilson's appeal against his first conviction and had ordered a new trial.

In its judgment of that date, the Court said that there would be an order forbidding the publication in any news media of any report or account of the evidence which was held to be inadmissible by the judgment.

After Mr Wilson’s acquittal, the ‘'Dominion" newspaper sought from the Court permission to publish the evidence which had been suppressed by the Court order.

In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Cooke, on March 15, 1982, the Court said that all counsel had submitted that sections 375 and 376 of the Crimes Act, 1961, explicitly gave the Court power to discharge or vary such an order if, in the Court's opinion, the interests of jiltice now required that course. The Court accepted that view. His Honour said, "The evidence was held .to have, been procured by police methods which were such that it should never have come into existence.

"In deciding whether the Court should nevertheless now allow it to be published in the news media at this stage, little assistance is to be had from the cases cited in argument." His Honour said that the relevant principles were extensively dealt with in stand-' ard textbooks. Obviously they also warranted, serious discussion in the news media. In this case, it was hard to see that discussion of that kind • would be helped by publishing details of the inadmissible evidence. So the Court had some concern that the main result of the removal of the order might be opportunities for sensationalism. His Honour said, “On the other hand, there are two particular features of this case. “One is that counsel for the former accused, while opposing the present application, informed the Court that it has been announced that an author is writing a book about the case.’lt would be unaffected by the order. “As the book will not necessarily eventuate, that feature might well not be decisive by itself. But there is also the fact that at the time of the first trial much of the evidence later ruled out was published in newspapers.” ■ His Honour, said that considered together, the Court regarded those features as decisive. As counsel had said, they made the whole matter now rather academic. The case was clearly not a suitable one for attempting to lay down -any general rules. For the reasons the Court had given, the order made on September 2, 1981, was now discharged. In its judgment of September 2, the Court said that the appeal was against a conviction for murder brought on the ground .that oral and written statements obtained from Mr Wilson by the police ought not to have been admitted in evidence. The Court then comprised Mr Justice Cooke (presiding), Mr Justice Richardson, and Mr Justice' Barker. The judgment, which was delivered by Mr Justice Cooke, said that on the.morning of January 15, 1981, Miss Robinson, who had lived alone in her house at Lady’s Mile, Foxton, had been found dead in her bedroom. She had died from multiple stab wounds to the neck. In all there had been about 20 to 25 lacerations or wounds to her head and the upper part of her body. A bloodstained carving knife had been near the body and a pool of blood. Dealing with the obtaining of statements from Mr Wilson, his Honour said that the

important period had begun about 2.45 p.m.. when Mr Wilson had been taken into the police interview room again. The evidence had been that it had been a room of about Bft by 10ft, painted predominantly black, and containing a table and two or three chairs. There had been one window, about 18in by 3ft 6in big, which had been kept open. Mr Wilson had said in evidence on the voir dire (evidence heard in the absence of a jury) that his clothes had clung to him with sweat. He had been kept in the room until 8.11 p.m.. when he had made an oral confession, and until he had signed a written statement to the same effect, shortly before 9 p.m. Throughout the period of about 5% hours before Mr Wilson's oral confession, policemen had been continuously with him. sometimes three, sometimes two, occasionally one. The door of the room had been kept shut throughout the period, except when policemen had come in or gone out. A policeman had been stationed outside the door.

There had been no suggestion that any physical violence, had been used at any stage. Mr Wilson had been given refreshment at different times: fruit juice, a milkshake, and a hamburger. He had declined a full meal. The real question was the psychological effect of the prolonged interrogation in all the circumstances.

According to Detective Sergeant Parker’s evidence, Mr Wilson had made what the Court had referred to as an oral confession. His Honour said, “He did not directly admit to stabbing Miss Robinson but made references to burgling the house, being confronted by her, pushing her and her hitting the floor pretty hard, and having the knife.

“Parker offered to allow the appellant to write the statement down. But the appellant preferred Parker to do it. Parker warned the appellant again and wrote down a handwritten statement. which he read and signed. “There is no need to reproduce it. In substance it, too. could readily be regarded as a confession. Parker . then asked him about a torch he said he had recovered from the house. "The appellant drew a sketch indicating where he had thrown it away. At 8.46. Parker arrested him and charged him with the murder, cautioning him yet again.” His Honour said that whether 1 questioning amounted to cross-examina-tion could be a matter of degree. Again, the restriction was not to be strictly applied to the extent of handicapping the . police unreasonably in their inquiries. “But here one is driven to regard the whole interview from 2.45 p.m., when the statement made by the suspect in custody was first challenged, and continuing after cautions about 4.45 p.m., 5 -p.m, and 5.30 p.m. until 8.11 p.m., when he confessed, as in truth ad substance a cross-examinaton.” The irregularities had gone beyond mere breaches of the Judges’ Rules. In . the court's opinion the prolonged interrogation in the confinement of a small room had to be treated, in all the circumstances, as unfair and oppressive. While not involving violence, the oppression had had a physical character, putting it in the category of “other form of compulsion.” Accordingly, the oral and written statements were not admissible, no matter whether or not the means employed to induce them were likely to cause an untrue admission of guilt.