Crown’s Evidence Wholly Circumstatial Mr Noble Claims

Northern Advocate, 25 May 1939, Page 8

Crown’s Evidence Wholly Circumstatial Mr Noble Claims

[Special in “Northern Advocate”] AUCKLAND, This Day

|> OTH THE DEFENDING COUNSEL TO-DAY INTIMATED THAT THEY J BID NOT INTEND TO CALL EVIDENCE. MR MEREDITH SAID THAT HE 818 NOT PROPOSE TO ADDRESS THE JURY. His Honour then called upon Mr Noble.

In a very brief address. Mr Noble said that the case had aroused tremendous interest and was overladen with prejudice. The criminal law of New Zealand provfded that no man was called on to prove his innocence, but the Crown must prove the case without the assistance of the accused.

The Crown's case was wholly circumstantial; there was no direct evidence whatever; there had merely been a lot of guessing and deduction, in an endeavour to prove that the accused had interfered with the body of Shine. No witness had seen any body.

“So far as arson is concerned. McKay^

was not there at all when the fire occurred. Even the evidence which my learned friend brought forward says that,” Mr Noble proceeded. “There is not one particple of evidence to show that McKay was there when the fire started. How could a man who was not there start the fire?” Was There Agreement? Concerning the charge of conspiracy, Mr Noble invited the jury to say by verdict whether there was any definite agreement between the accused to come to New Zealand to commit a crime so that they could defraud an insurance company and return, to Australia.

maximum decreed by, the legislature for arson was life imprisonment. Relatively the other charges were less grave in the matter of punishment. The evidence, he said, was purely circumstantial. No witness had come forward to say that both or either of the accused actually committed the crimes with which they were charged, but the Crown produced a number of witnesses deposing to a series of incidents which they endeavoured to link together and urge that the coincidences were so manifest that guilt had been established. Chain Must be Strong. It was true that circumstantial evidence was relied on considerably in the Dominion’s Courts, but it was only valuable ' when the chain of coincidence and circumstance was strong in every link. The Crown, in this case, were compelled to assert a theory. They alleged that a conspiracy existed whereby the two accused set out to defraud insurance companies of a large sum of money.

The effect of the conspiracy charge was not in New Zealand at all. If they did not believe conspiracy existed at all, they would, on their evidence, return a verdict of not guilty. If they wished to say conspiracy took place in Australia, then the counsel would be more than satisfied. Hs asked that they return a verdict of not guilty on all charges.

Conspiracy normally involved collusion between two parties to secure a common objective in their common interest. In regard to this the first serious challenge could be made to the theory of the Crown,

McKay was insured for £40,000, but it was impossible for Talbot to benefit financially even assuming the scheme were successful. The Crown theory, therefore, meant that Talbot agreed to leave Australia, come to New Zealand, involve himself in crime, return to Australia, support a claim for insurance, be pursued and harrassed by insurance officials and police officials and police—without the certainty and with little prospect of any financial advantage. One could not believe that his association or friendship with the accused McKay would possibly lead him into such a foolish step.

In his declaration on arrival in New Zealand, Talbot mentioned his purpose as a visitor, and the fact that he brought a sporting gun and a swimming costume and inquired about fishing indicated that he had no idea of the possible trend that events might take. It ’ was submitted on his behalf that all the facts relating to his association with McKay in New Zealand were capable of an innocent interpretation. Talbot In Background. Passing in detail to the evidence, Mr Terry said it was most significant that, in relation to two crucial inquiries brought out ’in the evidence—namely, those made by McKay at the cemetery and at the late Patrick Henry Shine’s house—Talbot was not present.

Further, the agent for the Piha bach and his wife made the noteworthy statement that Talbot was very silent, and be hardly spoke at all. All the letting, the payment of rent, the delivery of keys was with the one person, and so it went on in every other matter.

The rental of the car and payment for it, the hiring of the garage and the payment for it, were McKay’s. Talbot certainly acted independently when he inquired in Woodland’s road for a garage, but he made it clear that he was dependent on the decision of another party.

In giving a reason for hiring the garage Talbot made no mention of leaving packages, but he spoke of two cars and the evidence showed that McKay was using two cars. Otherwise, during this period, Talbot’s only activities related to the performance of menial duties—he was the chauffeur, or he was putting on or taking off a lock, or doing some similar trifling duty. In nothing did he take the initiative or assume to have any knowledge of the objective. Summoned Aid Quickly. The Crown had completely failed to establish that Talbot in any way know of the existence of the package alleged to have been seen in Mrs Hearling’s garage. All the witnesses agreed that he was greatly agitated at the time of the fire, and it seemed strange that if ho had any part in incendiarism he should have so soon sought assistance. During this phase of his address Mr Terry said he wished to warn the jury that he was not passing any opinion on the case as it concerned McKay. Not Sufficient To Convict. In conclusion, Mr Terry asked the jury to remember that speculation 02 conjecture or surmise was not suf-

ficient to justify a verdict adverse to the accused. The clearest proof, amounting to moral conviction and certainty, alone sufficed. “Remember the minimum interest he had in any preliminary arrangements,” counsel added. “Can you think he was such a consummate actor as to delude all the spectators and experienced police officers at the fire? Can you find in his actions and conduct subsequent to the fire and to the time of his arrest such signposts of guilt ,as coerce you and compel you to say he must be guilty? Is it impossible to believe in his innocence? “I invite you to say that the facts are not so insistent as to drive you irresistibly to a verdict of guilty —I claim at your hands, on behalf of Talbot, a verdict which I say is at once consistent with the evidence, consonant with your oaths and in accord with the principles under which our criminal trials are held—a verdict, in respect of all the charges, that the prisoner Talbot is not guilty.”-

Turkey has ordered 58 British locomotives, among the largest in Europe, to the value of £1,'000,000, which is the biggest single order for years, and the first Turkish order since the war. Germany is reported to be seeking to barter £1,250.000 worth of German machinery for 50,000 tons of Argentina meat.