Appeal Hearing In Auckland Murder Case

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 June 1948, Page 2

Appeal Hearing In Auckland Murder Case

(P.A;) WELLINGTON, This Day. The CoUft of Appeal, of Mr Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Fair and ,Mr Justice Stanton, commenced thb hearing this morning of the appeal of Pansy Louise Frances Haskell from, her conviction on a charge of murder, by a jury at Auckland on Mafth 13. ih her notice of appeal, Haskell stated, her grounds as: 1. That a member of the jury, William Vincent de Paul Hogan, traffic officer, employed bv the Auckland City Council, was by virtbe of the provisions of. the Municipal Corporations Act, 1933, a special constable and as such exempt from jury services; that Hogan applied for exemption when summonsed for Sbi’Vice and was wrongfully .refused exemption; that the trial Judge, Mr Justice Finlay, failed to discharge the jury and order a new trial when he became aware of these facts; and that as a result she was in law not tried by ri full jury. 2. That Mr Justice Finlay misdirected the jury in his final address oh certain matters of law and fact. 3. That the verdict of guilty Was obtained by both unfair and improper practice of counsel for the prosecution at the trial in respect of his Criticism of various statements made by her to the police. 4. That the final address of MrJustice Finlay to the jury was, on the Whole, ih sUch language and was delivered ih such a manner as was intended to and did, in fact, support the contentions of the prosecution ahd did not refer in any reasonable and proper way to the defence; and did, in fact; result in the jury returning a verdict. Of guilty. 5. That the verdict was against the weight of evidence and it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty. Mr M. Robinson, of Auckland, is appearing for the appellant, and Mr V. R. Meredith and Mr G. D. Speight, both of Auckland, are appearing for the Crown. Opening the Case for Haskell, Mr Robinson said that the notice of appeal set forth matters believed to be correct at the time when it was filed, but it had since been found that, m fact, no application for exemption was made by the juror, Hogan either personally or on his behalf by the superintendent of traffic, Auckland, and that, as a special constable was hot disqualified from jury service, but merely exempted, he could not argue in the absence of ah application for exemption that the first ground of appeal should succeed. .(Proceeding)