Counsel cross-examined

Press, 18 March 1982, Page 6

Counsel cross-examined

PA Wellington Counsel who assisted the Royal Commission on the Arthur Allan Thomas case, Mr Howard Keyte, faced intense cross-examination most of yesterday, the second day of a Court of Appeal hearing reviewing certain findings of the commission. Under cross-examination, Mr Keyte said he believed the former Detective Chief Inspector Bruce Hutton should have been well aware of allegations against him as a result of High Court proceedings on the Thomas case. He told the Court during the hearing that the commission reached the view that the cartridge case, exhibit

350, could not have contained the bullets found in the bodies of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe. Mr • Keyte said it did not ever occur to him to warn Mr Hutton that proceedings might hold serious implications for him. He said he believed that once he had given Mr Hutton a list of subjects on which to prepare q briefing, Mr Hutton would have had instructions with counsel acting for the police. “I had no apprehension he would enter the courtroom unequipped to answer questions,” Mr Keyte said. It would not have been proper, he said, to “go behind Hutton’s counsel’s backs” and give him any warning.

To Mr Justice Cooke, Mr Keyte said he considered that Mr Henry and ’ Mr Fisher, counsel for the police, had the task of protecting the police, and for this reason he would not think of giving the late Detective Johnston’s relatives or estate notice that the commission might be likely to find allegations of grave impropriety against Detective Johnston. Earlier, Mr Keyte said in cross-examination that he did not intend at the start of his examination Of Mr Hutton before the hearing, to put it to Mr Hutton that he might have planted the cartridge case. However, he said he

received such "unsatisfactory” answers during the course of his examination that the “matter jelled in his mind” and he thought it proper to put it to him. To a question by the Chief Justice, Sir Ronald Davison, he said that before meeting the chairman of the commission, Mr Justice Taylor, of Australia, he had understood his own role to follow procedure outlined in an official booklet on Royal Commissions.

However, he said the chairman had made it clear that his function was to call for evidence, to try to collect together issues raised by terms of reference, and to assist the commission on matters of law.