COURT OF APPEAL RESERVES DECISION IN HASKELL CASE

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 June 1948, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL RESERVES DECISION IN HASKELL CASE

(P.A.) Wellington, June 29. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Justices Kennedy, Eair, and Stanton, continued its hearing today of the Crown case on the appeal brought by Pansy Louise Frances Haskell from her conviction on a charge of murder by a jury at Auckland on March 13. Dealing with the appellant’s contention that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, Mr. Meredith (for the Crown) submitted that there was ample evidence adduced at the trial to enable a reasonable jury to find a verdict of guilty. The' evidence showed motive, expressed intention and a previous attempt on the part ot accused. The jury also must consider her opportunity, presence at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder and various subsequent acts indicative of guilt.

Counsel showed from statements mage by accused to the police that she wished Rusden to divorce deceased. The evidence of Edward Walter Rix showed that accused made previous attempts to procure the murder ot deceasea. Where Rix’s remarkable story had been able to be corroborated by independent evidence, it had been shown to be correct. Much ot Rix's story of the first attempt to murder deceased in his car had been supported by the evidence of independent witness, Mr. Underill, the neighbour of deceased who had helped her on the night after she had been attacked. Counsel showed that accused had knowledge of the premises where the crime occurred through being there on previous occasions. Rusden’s house was carpeted from the front door to the kitchenette where the body was found, making it possiole for a person to reach the kitchenette without giving warning of approach. A key of the front door had been found by detectives in accused’s dressing table. Further, injuries causing death could have been delivered to deceased by a person of no great strength and the evidence indicated that the murder had been committed by a person who had the means of access and a knowledge of the house, both of which were possessed by accused. From such evidence the jury was fully justified in concluding that accused was guilty. In reply to appellant s contention that evidence of the identification o* accused was uncertain, counsel* for the Crown submitted that sure identification was provided by two witnesses who had clearly seen accused near the scene of the crime on the morning the murder was committed. It was surely not a mere coincidence that the person picked by the two witnesses as b'eing on the scene of the crime was the one person who had both opportunity and motive to commit murder. Counsel stated that there was no ground for claiming that the judge had misdirected the jury. At the trial the judge had meticulously set out all matters for the attention of the jury, and at rimes had asked defence counsel whether he wished certain points of his cross-examination to be read to the jury to refresh their memories. The judge had adequately advised the jury, as to the onus oi proof, the definition of murder, and the' possibility of the crime being committed by Rix cr Rusden. The Crown finally submitted that there were no grounds for holding that the verdict was against the weight of evidence or that th’e judge misdirected the jury, and the appeal should therefore fail. The Court, after the conclusion of argument, reserved its decision.