MAREO CASE

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24906, 20 June 1946, Page 4

MAREO CASE

COURT DISMISSES APPEAL (P.A.) WELLINGTON, June 19. In the appeal by Eric Mareo against uis conviction for murder in 1936, the Court of Appeal to-day gave judgment dismissing the application, The Chief Justice (the Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Myers) in reading the judgment of the Court remarked that the history of the case had been reviewed in decisions given on earlier applications this year, when Mareo applied for an order for the examination of overseas medical witnesses. The only material before the first jury was evidence for the Crown, and no evidence had been called for the defence, whereas on the second trial a numbar of witnesses had been called for the defence, although the prisoner himself had not given evidence. Although the fact that the prisoner had not given evidence could not be used against him in the trial before a jury, the Court of Appeal considered that it could take this into account. The Court considered that the submission made by Mr Sexton on behalf of the prisoner, that the second trial was unsatisfactory because it was held in Auckland where considerable prejudice existed, was not open for consideration at this stage. As to the evidence of Miss Stark, the Court held that there had been no real material difference' between her evidence at the t-70 trials. The Court could not accept the suggestion made for the prisoner that her evidence was largely inconsistent with earlier statements made to the police, and was of the opinion that her evidence did not in fact bear the importance attributed to it by counsel for the-Crown or by the trial judge. Without laying down any general rule, the Court pointed out that a substantial miscarriage of justice must be apparent before a verdict could be set aside, and held that this case boiled down to an application for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.

On the evidence it had been competent for the jury to find against the theories of automatism or of suicide which had been raised by the defence. Although the prisoner’s counsel had asked for a verdict of “murder or nothing,” it was still open to the jury, if it thought fit, to have found a verdict of manslaughter, and the trial judge, ir summing up, nad made this clear to the jury, and said nothing which would in any way be unfair to the prisoner.

The Chief Justice concluded that neither the trial nor tlr verdict had been found unsatisfactory, and that the appeal must be dismissed.