ROSS APPEAL DISMISSED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18059, 6 April 1922, Page 7

ROSS APPEAL DISMISSED

DECISION BY MAJORITY. ONE JUDGE DISSENTS. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. (Rood 10.55 p.m.) SYDNEY, April 5 The High Court of Australia, by s, majority verdict of four to one, refused Colin Campbell Boss leave to appeal against his conviction for tho murder of Alma Tirtschke. a 12-year-old girl. Mr. Justice Isaacs, who dissented, held that without hesitation there should bo a new trial. No otner avenue of appeal is now open to Ross.

The Bench, before which Colin Campbell Ross made his third bid for life, consisted of the Chief Justice (Sir Adrian Knox), Mr. Justice Higgins, Mr. Justice Isaacs, Mr. Justice Duffy, and Mr. Justice Starke. The application was based on the prisoner's contention that the judgment of the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal was wrong in law especially— (a) In that it did not deal with the substance of the first ground of appeal. This was that the verdict was against tho evidence and against the weignt of evidence, tho argument addressed to the Court being that the evidence was contained substantially in two alleged confessions made by the prisoner, and that the two alleged confessions were in confiiot with each other, and that both were in conflict, with some of the direct testimony. (b) In that it did not deal with the substance of the fourth ground of appeal. This ground complained of non-direction and misdirection by the learned Judge, in thai; he did not direct the jury as to the dangers of accepting confessional evidence, and the impossibility of testing by cross-examination the conflicts between the alleged confessions, or tho delay of the recipients of the alleged con fessions in communicating with the police. (c) In that it held that the learned trial Judge had fully and correctly charged the jury on the question of manslaughter, as raised by the five grounds of appeal. (d) In that it excluded the additional evidence, proposed to be called before tho Full Court, as outlined in the affidavits of William O'Kee, in calling evidence to rebut the evidence of Joseph Thomas Graham, and in holding that the evidence of Graham, and the evidence of the proposed witness Crilley, mentioned in the judgment of Their Honors, could not have affected the minds of the jury.