CRICK-WILLIS JURY

Colonist, Volume XLVIX, Issue 11824, 3 January 1907, Page 3

CRICK-WILLIS JURY

THE ROYAL COMMISSION Received, January 3, 12.31 a.m. Sydney, January 2. The Royal Commission appointed to enquire whether any person was guilty of misconduct in connection j with the Crick- Willis trial has commenced taking evidence, the main object being to decide as to the integrity of the sheriffs officers. The sheriff deposed that so far as he knew no one was guilty of misconduct, the officers were specially selected because they were considered trustworthy. There was considerable trouble owing to the illness of several jurymen, and doctors were admitted and an officer went more frequently into the juryroom than otherwise would have been the case. Ten jurymen were examinsed Several had no complaint to make and saw no misconduct, the privacy of the jury room being maintained. Others complained of the conduct of the sheriffs' officers and of othe r matters . The foreman of the jury in bis evidence, voiced complaints. He stated that early in the trial one juryman stated that no matter what the evidence was he was for acquittal, lhe jury pointed out to him the seriousness of the position and decided to communicate with the Sheriff, but the juryman promised that he would consider the evidence and they did not. However, he afterwards refused to sit and talk with other jurymen when they., came to considering the verdict. They had never practically dragged him into the room and they felt that lhe whole thing, from beginning to end, was a farce, becuse of this juryman, having given an opinion. The witness considered that the privacy of the jury was largely interfered with by officials who had too much latitude in conversing with the jury. The officer in charge at night spent lengthy periods in conversing with tbe jury and asked what they thought of Crick's address and the judge's summing up, stating that the Sheriff always wanted to know how juries were getting on and sent him to enquire. Two jurymen informed witness that some officers had been at them several times and had also given one of them certain information regarding two witnesses. Other complaints were that this officer had freedom of communication with hoth jurymen and defendants, that be conversed with jurymen separately both inside and when out exercising, that a signal was exchanged when outside betweeii a juryman and the defendants, that the Sheriff's officer listened at the door of the juryroom. The foreman also gave evidence that when going to Darlinghurst for the trial he was approached by a man who told him he was going to sco if he could give Willis a hand and wanted to see if he knew any of the jury. The same man approached others.