RUAWARO MURDER CHARGES

Evening Star, Issue 21620, 16 January 1934, Page 6

RUAWARO MURDER CHARGES

PRELIMINARY HEARING BEGINS COUfcT RUSHED BY PUBLIC UNIQUE APPLICATION BY ACCUSED'S COUNSEL , EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC REFUSED [Peb United Fbess Association.] AUCKLAND, January 16. Hundreds outside the Eolice Court this morning in the hope of gaining admission to the preliminary hearing of the double murder charge against William Alfred Bayly, aged 28. a farmer of Ruawaro. The queue started from nine o’clock. Three: constables kept the crowd in order and every door to the court was guarded. When the main door was opened there was a frantic scramble of men and women. As they surged into the public portion, of the court some women, screamed. Bayly, who looked well and showed not the slightest sign of stress, was charged that at Ruawaro on or about October 15 he did murder Christobel Lakey, and further that at Ruawaro on or about October 15 he did murder Samuel Pender Lakey. When the charges had been read the accused’s counsel applied for suppression of the evidence. This application was refused by the magistrate, Mr Wyvern Wilson. The case for the crown is being conducted by Mr W. R. Meredith, Crown Prosecutor at Auckland, and Mr F. M‘Carthy. The accused is being defended by Mr E. H. Northcroft and Mr R. B. Lusk. Among those present were the Commissioner of Police, Mr W- C. \y°hlniann'. CROWN'S EVIDENCE. It was agreed that both charges be heard together. The first witness, J, J. Carroll, of the Lands Department, produced topogram phical plans of the Bayly and Lakey farms, plans of the point where- the farms adjoin, and plans of a swamp, and of the various farm buildings. Upon the application of the defence counsel, all other witnesses except Police-inspector J. W. Hollis were ordered from the court. The police fingerprint expert and photographer, Claude M. Francis, produced photographs, including one of a vehicle standing- against a wattle tree, one of the interior of Lakey’s kitchen, showing a table; and one of the duckpond, snow’ng the sloping end after the. water had been drained out. Frank Stewart, photographer, produced a series of photographs taken on January 8 from an aeroplane at Ruawaro of the Bayly and Lakey properties.

More photographs were produced by Senior-sergeant E. W. Dinnie, of police headquarters. > At this stage accused was permitted to sit in the dock. Raymond George Brader, aged eleven, who had lunch with the Lakeys on the Sunday of the tragedy, said Lakey was in his working clothes. There were three guns in the passage. He left at 2.30. Lakey was then dying on' the sofa reading. Mrs Lakey went with witness to-' the fence, and kissed him good-bye, as usual, and gave him a rabbit to take home. Both the Lakeys were well, and appeared just as usual that day. Bertram Vernon Stevens, farmer, said ho knew the Lakeys well. They were very nice people, and got on well together. Witness, from his place, could see the paddock into which Lakey turned his cows after milking. That Sunday night the cows were turned into the paddock about 6.30, and witness saw a man, but could 1 not say who it was. About 445 next morning wi|> ness got up to milk, and saw Lakey’s cows in the same paddock. They were there at 8.15. Witness concluded that the Lakeys were sick, and after finishing milking and carting cream on a sledge to the gate of a neighbour named Wright, he went to Lakey’s. On the road near Lakey’s gate were Lakey’s two cream cans. The witness Stevens said 1 he and Wright knocked at Lakey’s door and called out, but got no answer. They went to the cowshed and found nobody there. They returned to the house and walked through it. The bed in the front room had been made up, but did not look like having been slept in. The fireplace was cold. They went over to a neighbour, Sanson’s, and Wright got in touch with the police. They returned and milked Lakey’s cows. Witness then went up to the house and found Constable Robertson there. Witness noticed a lot of sacks which he had seen before, but had-passed by. They removed the sacks and found the body of Mrs Lakey. She was resting with her head on her hands under the water in the duckpond. . Part of her face - was under the. water. After the body had been lifted out witness noticed a mark on the middle of the chin. There was blood issuing from the nose. She was dressed in old milking clothes and gumboots. , A shotgun in pieces was produced, and witness said it was very like Lakey’s gun. He identified another gun as Mrs Lakey’s, and a waistcoat as Lakey’s. , ' . The court adjourned for a tew minutes while witness went outside to inspect the wheels, frame, and axle ot an old cart. . „ The wheels were kept usually near the remains of a boat near the fence. Witness noticed them near a wattle tree about two chains from Bayly s boundarWitness said he had never seen Lakey use those wheels, nor had he ever seen them at the wattle tree before. Witness identified a cigarette lighter as one very similar to Lakeys. The wick in the lighter was supplied by Mrs Lakey, who also gave witness a spare piece for himself. , , Witness was asked questions concerning various items of Lakey’s personal property and clothing. He said Lakey had auburn hair, inclined to go grey. The court adjourned at 1 o clock till 2.15. ‘

PUBLIC MIND INFLAMED COUNSEL FEARS PREJUDICED CASE WHY HE SOUGHT SUPPRESSION '' [Special to the Star.] AUCKLAND, January 16. Without precedent in New_ Zealand criminal jurisdiction, Mr Northcroft made a surprise application to the magistrate immediately after the accused stepped into the dock, andwas charged. Counsel asked that the public And Press

should be excluded from the prelimin* ary hearing of the charges. “ Before the hearing of the evidence is proceeded with,” said Mr Northcroft* “ I have an application to make* founded on section 143 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1827.” ’After reading this, Mr Northcroft proceeded: “The courts as a general rule are open to the public, but a preliminary inquiry byj a magistrate or a justice is not a trial* And consequently it may be held; that! right of access is, generally to proceed* ings held in open court; beyond this the] public possess at common law no fur* ther rights. The view I submit respect* fully is that only where Your Worship exercises summary jurisdiction does this become an open court where the public is admitted. I think that the.'ends of justice will be best served, by the exclusion of the Press and the public in' this case. After all, the-paramount thing is justice.”' i Mr Northcroft said, that, with regard to the Crown’s view of his application., he could, see that his, learned friend would submit that the publicity'given to the case’might result in spontaneous evidence being offered and given. In some cases that might be well,-but in! the present case ? having regard: to-the tremendous publicity given in the Press to the case, and the minute and veryj elaborate investigation by the - -police, it would be hard to jonceive that the police had not discovered everything. “ So much for the crime,” said..counsel. “ With regard to the accused, -I submit that there is the greatest danger of his not receiving a fair and impartial trial in the Supreme Court if the proceedings are published. This matter has had the greatest-publicity, given to it, every little incident being recorded. We have been, told that over, fifty police, including some of the best’ investigators in the country, have been; working on the case. The public imagination has been so stirred that it is difficult to say that an impartial jury will be empanelled.” ’ " ’ “ If these proceedings are open to the Press and public it follows that wide publicity will be given to the Crown’s case without any critical cross-examina-tion and opposing theories. Thei the view formed by the public, with a ihind already inflamed, will hardly ensure a fair trial for the accused. - The only, barm that can be done at the present moment if my application is granted is that the morbid and ghoulish tastes of the public will not be gratified; They will be deprived of it twice,' but they can enjoy it once when the case is heard in the Supreme Court. We are concerned above all with the purity of justice and the removal of any danger or trial by a jury which is prejudiced. It will be almost an impossibility to get. a jury, that will be impartial if ; the circumstances of this case are reported.” ,Mr V. R. Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, said the discretion to hear a case in camera was very sparingly exercised,and only when the administration of justice was paralysed was it doneThere had been only one instance where it was done, and that was during rebellion, when witnesses it was feared might be shot in court; “I 'cannot agree that the publishing of the evidence is; going to affect a jury. The mere fact that rumours may be floating about will not make twelve men on a jury forget their duty and oaths; The Magistrate (Mr Wilson) .said:] “ Prima facie criminal cases are, always taken in open court. It is one of the safeguards of our system, .and for. the administration of justice, the administration of the criminal law should bo in' public, so that the public will, Lave confidence in the way the law is administered. Will , the ends of justice best be answered by the clearing of the court, exclusion ,of the. Press ?, What is there to lead me to’believe it?' I am told that the present state of the public mind makes it.impossible to get an impartial jury and a fair trial.If the case is heard in open court, and if the exact facts as presented by the police are made known to the public,then all , untrue stories and rumoura will be set in their proper place. When the true facts are placed before the public, it will kill any untruth and all l rumour. The jury will be drawn from the public. - •If some of the jurymen, may be prejudiced, then it is all the more reason that they should hear the facts now. I, cannot grant the application. No good reason, has beep- shown: me why I should grant it. The ends of justice will best he served. by hearing the case in open court.” Hearing of .the evidence was then proceeded with.