Supreme Court YOUTH ACQUITTED ON THEFT CHARGE

Press, Volume C, Issue 29506, 6 May 1961, Page 14

Supreme Court YOUTH ACQUITTED ON THEFT CHARGE

Robin Alexander Colquhoun, aged 20. an apprentice carpenter, was found not guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday on a charge of theft of a wrist watch, valued at £l3 10s. the property of Peter David Harvery, a 13-year-old schoolboy. at the North Beach Surf Life-saving Club pav‘l- - on January 5. Mr Justice Macarthur discharged Colquhoun. The jury took 20 minutes to reach its verdict. Mr C. M. Roper conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr P. G. S. Penlington appeared for Colquhoun. Opening the case for the Crown, Mr Roper said that Harvey was a member of the North Beach Surf Lifesaving Club, and on January 5 went for a swim from the club pavilion, leaving his clothes and watch in the pavilion. Harvey would say hp left his watch on a shelf. When he dressed, he forgot his watch. He returned for the watch about 5.30 p.m. on the same day. but the watch was no longer on the shelf. Michael John O’Neill, a carpenter, would say that he was in the pavilion that day and saw the watch on the shelf. O’Neill would say that the accused asked him whose watch it was, and O’Neill replied that lie did not know. On January 12. Harvey reported the loss of his watch to the police, who began inquiries, Mr Roner said. On January 15. Harvey again looked at the shelf in the pavilion, but his watch was not there. Harvey was playing table tennis at the pavilion that afternoon, when his watch was handed back to him by O’Neill. Police Interview On January 28, the accused was interviewed by the police. He made a statement that he had found the watch on the verge of Travis road about a mile from the pavilion on January 6. the day after the watch was missing, Mr Roper said. The accused told the police that he had told his parents he had found the watch. He put it back on the shelf where he had seen it. When it was handed back to Harvey, the accused said, he did not tell Harvey or anyone else about finding it a mile from the pavilion. “A considerable matter of importance in this case may be the returning of the watch to its true owner. Subject to what his Honour may say. the Crown says the watch was taken when it was moved from the shelf, and the return of the watch does not cancel out that crime.” Mr Roper said. “The Crown asks you to infer from the evidence that the accused stole the watch and on a later

date, frightened because of police inquiries or repentant of his earlier action, returned the watch.” Evidence along these lines was given by , , C £? SS " examined by Mr Penlington. Harvey said the pavilion was open all the summer because of possible emergencies; that the pavilion had two doors opening on to the public way: that many local people knew this; and that often strangers were in the pavilion playing table tennis. Harvey agreed that the accused was a senior member of the North Beach Surf Lifesaving Club, a member of the committee and winner of many club trophies for swimming and life-saving technique. The witness agreed that he had left hit watch at the pavilion on many previous occasions. O’Neill, a senior member of the club, said in crossexamination that he had known the accused at school and at the surf club. He had never known the accused to be in trouble previously. Constable R. W. Desmond said he interviewed the accused and read his statement to the Court. Tb Mr Penlington, the witness said the accused gave this statement unhesitatingly and frankly. Defence Case Mr Penlington said the defence was that the accused did not steal the watch. The accused would give evidence that he saw a watch in the pavilion on January 5. but did not take much notice of it On January 6. the accused would say, he saw something glittering on the side of the road in Travis road. He picked up the watch, but did not connect the watch with the one he had seen in the pavilion. “The accused will say he showed the watch to his mother as soon he he got home. He will say he wore it at a surf carnival the next day. That evening, he went for a week’s holiday with his family to Akaroa. He wore the watch at Akaroa. “Both the accused and his mother will say they looked in the newspapers, published in Christchurch, in the ‘Lost and Found’ columns. ’’When the accused returned to Christchurch on January 14 he saw a notice in the surf club pavilion. The notice asked ‘the thief to return Harvey’s watch to Harvey or the club captain. The accused will say he was frightened because of the word *thief.' He thought the watch might be Harvey's, and put the watch on the shelf. "The next day, January 15, the accused went to the pavilion to play table tennis. Harvey, and his uncle, Cyril O’Neill, were there. The accused will say he took the watch from the shelf and asked Harvey to describe it O'Neill then gave Harvey the watch,” Mr Penlington 'said. Counsel said the defence was an emphatic denial that the accused stole the watch. Two persons, one his former headmaster, would give evidence of his good character. Cross-Examined The accused gave evidence along the lines of defence counsel’s opening. CrofKexamined by Mr Roper, he said he thought that the watch he found a mile from the pavilion might by chance be Harvey's when he read the notice in the pavilion. Mr Roper: Why didn’t you tell Harvey you found the watch a mile from the pavilion? The accused: I was frightened of the notice. Did you think of advertising you had found the watch? —No. Calling at houses near where you found it?—No. Reporting your find to the police?—No. In his final address to the jury, Mr Penlington said the matter was largely one of credibility. The accused had a good record. There was ample opportunity for someone else to have taken the watch. Mr Roper did not make a final address.