MAREO CASE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22499, 17 August 1936, Page 11

MAREO CASE

DEFENCE WITNESSES PAYMENT BY THE CROWN EXPLANATION BY COUNSEL An answer to statements made by Mr. F. W. Schramm, M.P., in the House of Representatives on Thursday concerning the payment by the Crown of the expenses of witnesses from Australia who gave evidence in the recent trial of Eric Marco, was given on Saturday by Mr. K. C. Aekins, one of the counsel for the defence at the trial. Mr. Schramm asked whether full enough inquiries were made by the prosecution to see if the expenditure on witnesses was proper, and expressed the opinion that the evidence of some of those witnesses, if not actually irrelevant, was discredited and of no value in tho eyes of the law. "On the second day of the first trial in the Supreme Court a cable was received by the defence from Australia in- | timating that the sender could give valuable evidence for the defence," explained Mr. Aekins, in describing the circumstances under which the evidence was called. "By interchange of cables it was ascertained that this witness could give evidence that he had seen tho late Mrs. Mareo taking veronal when depressed. The period of which ho spoke was some years prior to lier marriage. Statements to Police "A cable was sent to him asking him to give a statement to the Adelaide police, and to request them to forward it to the Auckland police. When he interviewed tho commissioner of police, tho authorities refused to embarrass tho Auckland police without a request from them to investigate. Subsequently other letters were received by the defence from people in Australia, who stated that they could give evidence which would assist the defence should a second trial be granted. The whole of this correspondence was subsequently forwarded, to the Minister of Justice, and in turn was sent to Australia, where the witnesses concerned were interviewedgby the Australian police in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide, and copies of their statements were supplied to the Crown, and subsequently to the defence in New Zealand. "Altogether eight witnesses were interviewed in Australia, and their statements forwarded to New Zealand," continued Mr. Aekins. "The whole of these witnesses could have been called by the defence, but as it was realised that that would involve considerable expense to the Government, only three were asked to be called. It was considered that their evidence was tho most important from th<» defence point of view." Fullest Investigation "To say that the evidence was, 'if not actually irrelevant, discredited and of no value in tho eyes of the law,' is not putting tho matter fairly. The fullest possiblo investigations and inquiries were made by the Australian police concerning the witnesses and their characters and veracity. "The fact that His Honor accepted the evidence as relevant, and that no objection was taken by tho Crown Prosecutor, is tho only test of its relevancy in the eyes of tho law," added Mr. Aekins. "Whether the evidence was accepted or rejected by the jury is known only to them, as they arc the only ones who know what goes on in the jury room." "I made every possiblo endeavour to secure funds for the defence of Mareo and exhausted every avenue before the Crown was approached for assistance," concluded Mr. Aekins.