15 allegations ‘no longer alive’

Press, 10 March 1987, Page 4

15 allegations ‘no longer alive’

PA Wellington The Court of Appeal was told yesterday it was dealing with an allegation that Edward Poulter Leary, a barrister and solicitor, was an untrustworthy person “who breaks the rules.” The Auckland District Law Society, in an application before Mr Justice Hardie Boys in September last year asked that Leary be struck off the rolls of barristers and solicitors. His Honour said in his judgment that the case should be considered by the Court of Appeal. Mr Justice Cooke, president, said yesterday the Court had unanimously concluded that the public interest in the openness of the administration

tice and the proper conduct of professional legal practice outweighed other considerations and decided not to make a suppression order. The Court also comprised Mr Justice Richardson, Mr Justice McMullin and Mr Justice Somers. The hearing continues today. For Leary, Mr Michael Crew said Mr Justice Hardie Boys had not said expressly that he thought Leary should be struck off. He had set out several factors, and had said in his view it was a proper case for consideration by the Court of Appeal. Of the 22 allegations, 15 were no longer “alive,” Mr Crew said. This meant they had either been abandoned by the Law Society or dismissed by

his Honour. Mr Crew said the matters now in issue were isolated incidents occurring between 1975 and 1982 in the practice of a man who had earned the highest commendation from Mr David Morris, the Auckland Crown solicitor, throughout those years. Mr Morris assisted the Royal Commission into drug trafficking concerning the affairs of Alexander Sinclair, also known as Terry Clark or “Mr Asia.” Mr Morris had said he always found Leary honourable and trustworthy and that other members of his firm who dealt with him had always found him a man of integrity on whose word they could rely, Crew said.

“We are really dealing here with an allegation that in the context of his practice as a barrister and solicitor, Mr Leary is an untrustworthy person who breaks the rules,” Mr Crew said. “Well, Mr Morris and other members of his firm, who are on the other side of the matters with which Mr Leary deals, are the people best suited to know whether that is the case.” Later, referring to a document exhibited, Mr Crew said the Court could see “the sort of incredible allegations Sinclair was making. Over all, Sinclair’s unsworn statement is not worth anything as evidence,” he said. Mr Crew submitted that Mr Justice Hardie Boys was left in the situation

that he had the evidence of one witness, a Mr Pope. The material part of the evidence was disavowed by the witness in evi-dence-in-chief. “Even if you accept his original statement, he himself was an accomplice of Mr Leary in a criminal enterprise,” Mr Crew said. “If that charge is to be proved it amounts to finding a man of demonstrably good character guilty of a criminal offence on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, evidence moreover that the accomplice has himself effectively disavowed." Mr Crew said a finding to the criminal standard of proof, which was required in this allegation, was impossible.