FAMOUS K.C.'S VIEW

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIII, Issue 168, 18 July 1942, Page 6

FAMOUS K.C.'S VIEW

"MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE"

GRAVE DANGER STRESSED

Another opinion on the Mareo trials has been given by Mr. E. G. Hemmerde, K.C., who is the Recorder for Liverpool, and is acknowledged to be one of the two greatest criminal lawyers of to-day, the other being Mr. Norman Birkett, K.C.

"I have read the reports of both trials with great care, and I should like to say that although 1 have read the case merely at my sister's request, 1 have done so as carefully as if I had been instructed to give an opinion, and my considered opinion is that there is grave danger that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice," said Mr. Hemmerde in this opinion, which is dated October 4, 1940.

Second Conviction Unsatisfactory

"In my opinion the second conviction is profoundly unsatisfactory. The evidence for the Crown seems to me too weak to justify a conviction. No doubt the jury may have come to the conclusion that they could accept without question the evidence of Freda Stark, but unless they rejected the evidence of Whittington, corroborated as it is by the evidence of the Reancs—it is clear that the trial judge saw no reason why they should—it seems to me quite incredible that she was telling the truth when she says she never knew Mrs. Mareo to take drugs. If the evidence of Whittington is true it is difficult to imagine a more dangerous conviction. For it is clear that it was never conclusively proved that Mrs. Mareo was in a state of coma on the Saturday, and unless she was in a coma the whole medical evidence of the Crown collapses. This, too, was clearly the viev of the trial judge.

"Of course, murders take place without apparent motive, but it is a little difficult when the chief witness for the Crown says that a week before the alleged murder 'Mr. and Mrs. Mareo were very happy together.' Why on earth should Mareo murder his wife? Why murder her when Freda Stark and his son and daughter were present?" asks Mr. Hemmerde.

"I agree with the trial judge that somewnat incriminating statements made by Mareo to the police probably arose from the extreme agitation of this temperamental person, who realised that although he knew that he and his wife were addicted to veronal, his purchase of veronal in quantities large enough to kill his wife might have an ugly appearance in the eyes of a critical police officer."

"Suspicion Is Not Proof" Mr. Hemmerde says further that it is quite true that a jury, most fairly and efficiently directecf by the trial judge, had convicted, but this was so in the well-known case of Rex v. Wallace (23. App. R32). "In this case I was leading for the Crown." he continues. "The trial judge summed up for an acquittal, feeling that the evidence was not strong enough for a conviction. The jury convicted, but after a two days' hearing by the Court of Criminal ApK;al the conviction was quashed, ewart. Lord Chief Justice, saying in his judgment, 'Suspicion, however grave, is not proof.' "I have always believed that Wallace was rightly convicted, and practically everyone believed in his guilt. But Mareo's case for consideration is far stronger. Even if one accepts the medical evidence for the Crown, I am still of the opinion that the conviction is extremely dangerous and should not be allowed to stand."

(Signed) Edward G. Hemmerde. Temple.