A CASE FOR REVIEW

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25866, 9 June 1945, Page 6

A CASE FOR REVIEW

There has been published in New Zealand recently, under the title “ I Appeal,” a work which, in spite of extravagance in statement,' calls for attention. The theme of its author, “ Criticus,” is not new, but it is always worth repeating, that only by vigilance and soul-searching can a community preserve its democracy. It is a theme which could be elaborated by reference to many aspects of New Zealand life. “ Criticus,” who has a particular axe to grind, applies it to the. case of Eric Mareo, who, having been convicted of wifemurder, is, under a commuted sentence of death, serving a life term of imprisonment in Mount Eden gaol. The argument of “ Criticus ” here is that if it can be shown that a miscarriage of justice has occurred and it remains unrectified, then the people of New Zealand are not merely • condoning an offence against one miserable man, but have denied their belief in justice and repudiated their democracy, which can exist only as long as the rights of the most helpless individual are respected. Although this statement may appear extreme, it has the most exemplary philosophical background and the negative and terrible example of the modern dictatorships 'to support it. The question, then, which “ Criticus ” raises, requires an answer. And this answer depends upon a critical re-examination of the Mareo case. It can be said truly enough that Mareo has received every legal consideration and assistance. He has been tried and found guilty not once, but twice, and his case has twice been submitted to select Parliamentary committees, which have had no recommendation to make and have thereby expressed their concurrence with the verdicts of the juries. Yet on the evidence submitted at Mareo’s trials, together with medical and legal opinions since obtained, there does seem to remain a grave doubt whether he was guilty as charged. This conclusion has two main bases: that the evidence of the chief witness for the Crown at both trials was inconsistent and unreliable, and that the chief medical witness was under a misapprehension concerning the effects of veronal poisoning. Of the principal witness to the occurrences in Mareo’s house —a woman named Stark—little requires saying. She appeared to be hostile to the accused, and her statements given at various times to the police and during the two trials differed in significant details. Yet if her evidence could not be accepted as implicit and as exact, then, as Mr Justice Callan told the jury at the second trial, it “ is not good enough to build medical theories upon.” As to that medical theory, it depends upon the evidential assumption that a lethal dose of veronal was administered to Thelma Mareo on the Saturday night before her death, and the-medical assumption that not otherwise could the described symptoms and results have become manifest. It is very understandable that a doctor whose knowledge of the barbiturates rests in great part on his reading should be misled when the texts he consults are not entirely up to date. In this case, the opinion of two Home Office toxicologists, * both men of eminence and with an understanding of the effects of the barbiturate drugs that could not be obtained in New Zealand, is not only that the fatal dose of veronal was not taken in the circumstances alleged by the Crown, but that it was self-administered very much ( earlier, while Mrs Mareo was al-' ready in a drugged state. Added to this is the opinion of the Recorder of Liverpool, which it is understood is shared by some eminent Dominion jurists, that even if the Crown’s medical evidence be accepted, “ the cdhviction is extremely dangerous and should not be allowed to stand.” In considering this case, it is naturally difficult to overlook that it has been twice fairly tried according to the ordinary procedure and twice subsequently reviewed. It is asserted, however, that the two juries sat in judgment in an atmosphere overcharged with prejudice, and they were not acquainted with the expert toxicologists’ opinion, while if “Criticus” is to be believed the select committees accepted their responsibilities lightly. But the opinion of even two juries and any number of Parliamentary committees is of no account if there exists to dispute it a reasonable doubt as to a convicted murderer’s guilt. It is fundamental to the British conception of justice that the accused should receive the benefit of this doubt, while Lord Chief Justice Hewart’s dictum that “ suspicion, however grave, is not proof ” might have been framed to meet the Mareo case. “Criticus” and others who are not convinced of Mareo’s guilt, including his counsel, have stated a cause which, in spite of all previous consideration it has received, deserves to be submitted to review, preferably by jurists and others who are able to evaluate expert testimony.