Police job sheet ‘not available’

Press, 22 July 1986, Page 9

Police job sheet ‘not available’

PA Wellington The lawyer representing Dean Hugh William Wickliffe in a murder trial in 1972 had sworn in an affidavit that an alleged statement by a witness would have been of vital importance to Wickliffe’s defence, the Court of Appeal was told yesterday. The Court is hearing a referral under section 406(a) of the Crimes Act, 1961, on the question of the conviction of Wickliffe for the murder of a jeweller, Mr Paul Andre Miet.

Wickliffe, now 36, was convicted in the Supreme Court at Wellington on May 3, 1972, of murdering Mr Miet and sentenced to life imprisonment It is alleged that a police job sheet was not available to Wickliffe, or his counsel, at his trial which contained a record of what a witness had said soon after the shooting and that this was in conflict with the evidence given by that witness at

Wickliffe’s trial. It is alleged that the job sheet contents support the contention of Wickliffe (given in evidence at his trial) that the firearm he held was accidentally discharged because Wickliffe was propelled into a door frame by Mr Miet. It is alleged that, having regard to the evidence given at the trial, Wickliffe ought not to have been convicted of murder. The Court comprises Sir Robin Cooke, president; Mr Justice Richardson, Mr Justice McMullin, Mr Justice Somers and Mr Justice Casey. The hearing continues today. Mr Charles Cato, representing Wickliffe in the Court of Appeal, said one of the grounds on which the Crown put the case to the jury was that it was cold-blooded execution.

The very essence of the case was the conflict between whether the shooting happened inside the shop in the position where Mr Miet confronted Wick-

liffe, whether there was no sudden movement, or whether it had happened in the way Wickliffe said it had.

Mr Cato said the jury convicted Wickliffe of murder with a strong recommendation to leniency. Wickliffe was later told by a prison warder that if he wanted to pursue his grievance he could seek information under the Official Information Act. Wickliffe subsequently sought the information.

Mr Cato said that central to the appeal was the job sheet completed by Constable O’Fea (now a detective sergeant). Mr O’Fea had recorded information he had received in the job sheet In a job sheet recording an account of a conversation with Mrs Evelyn Ellen Cameron at the scene of the crime, Constable O’Fea had said: "Cameron was in a very distressed state but she managed to tell me that on arrival at the shop in the morning

— she couldn’t tell me the exact time — she let herself in .and was in the shop with the manager and his son both upstairs. Mr Cato said the job sheet continued: “The main door of the shop from Cuba Street opened while she was standing behind the counter on. the southern side of the shop. A man came in whom she couldn’t really describe except for the fact that he was wearing a balaclava and carrying a duffle bag. The next thing she could remember at this stage was this man telling her to put all the rings in the duffle bag. He also said that if she didn’t he would kill her.

“Cameron said she couldn’t remember much more past that point except Mr Miet, jun., came down the stairs and stood between the gunman and herself. She said Miet appeared to jump at the gunman and there was a loud bang. At this point Mrs Cameron broke down ' and was unable to assist

any further at this stage. I then sent her upstairs with a woman from the Royal Oak Hotel who was looking after her ...”

Mr Cato submitted that the information, if it had been in the hands of the defence, would have been put to Mrs Cameron, and if there had been any doubt about whether or not she had said it, Constable O’Fea could have been called, perhaps for the defence, “way back in 1972 when matters obviously would have been clear to them from their recollection of events.”

Replying, the Crown solicitor, Mr Jim Larsen, said that assuming there was satisfactory evidence Mrs Cameron did make a statement to' the effect alleged, and assuming for the sake of argument it was established not merely that she made a statement but also that Mr Miet had in fact jumped at Wickliffe, it could not reasonably be supposed the jury would have brought in a different verdict sb