Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Appeal against life sentence

PA Wellington The Court of Appeal yesterday reserved decision in the case of Dean Wickliffe, sentenced to life imprisonment in 1972 for the murder of a Wellington jeweller, Paul Andre Miet.

The Court comprised Sir Robin Cooke, president, Mr Justice Somers, Mr Justice Richardson, Mr Justice McMullin and Mr Justice Casey. Dean Hugh William Wickliffe, now aged 36, was convicted of murder in a Supreme Court trial at Wellington on May 3, 1972.

His conviction was referred to the Court of Appeal by the GovernorGeneral, Sir Paul Reeves. It was submitted for Wickliffe that a police job sheet, not available to either him or his counsel at his trial, contained a record of what a witness said soon after the shooting and that this was in conflict with the evidence given by that witness at the trial.

It was alleged that the job sheet contents supported the contention of Wickliffe (given in evi-

dence at his trial) that a firearm he held was accidentally discharged because Wickliffe was propelled into a door frame by Mr Miet, and that he ought not to have been convicted of murder.

The Crown solicitor, Mr Jim Larsen, told the Court yesterday that it was clear that a Crown witness, Evelyn Ellen Cameron, had never been given an opportunity to read or otherwise comment on what was recorded in the job sheet made out by a constable (now a detective sergeant). Undoubtedly the strength of Wickliffe’s position was that because of the lapse of time, it was not known what the policeman would have said (about the job sheet) had he been asked, beyond what was in his affidavit.

Mr Larsen said the Court would have to make some very considerable and unwarranted assumptions before it could say there was a reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different had&ihe job sheet been available to the* defence.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19860723.2.72

Bibliographic details

Press, 23 July 1986, Page 10

Word Count
317

Appeal against life sentence Press, 23 July 1986, Page 10

Appeal against life sentence Press, 23 July 1986, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert