SUPREME COURT Found Guilty After 5hr Retirement

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31087, 16 June 1966, Page 16

SUPREME COURT Found Guilty After 5hr Retirement

The alleged identification of Brian Andrew Waterreus as an intruder who had been lurking naked in a girl’s Merivale flat on Christmas Eve would be “a very live issue,” said the Crown Prosecutor (Mr C. M. Roper), when Waterreus stood trial in the Supreme Court yesterday on a charge of burglary and an alternative charge of assaulting the girl. Waterreus, aged 30 a nightshift taxi-driver (Mr S. G. Erber), who pleaded not guilty, said in evidence that he had never been in Merivale on Christmas Eve, and did not know the whereabouts of the street in which the girl lived.

His story was rejected by the jury, which at 9.30 p.m. returned a verdict of guilty on the major count, after a retirement of almost five hours. Mr Justice Wilson remanded Waterreus in custody for sentence tomorrow. The Crown claimed two independent identifications of Waterreus—by the girl complainant, who had struggled with the man in her flat, and through the taking of a car number when a vehicle was driven from the street when the intruder got away, that number being the number of Waterreus’s car. Evidence Outlined In an outline of evidence, Mr Roper said that the girl had a bath about 9 p.m. As she came into her flat after having the bath the light went out. She tried the switch, and the light went on, enabling her to see a man standing behind the door. He was naked, apart from wearing her brassiere.

The man turned out the light again, locked the door, and attacked her. Her screams apparently caused him to attempt to get away out of the window, so that the girl was able to get out the door, outside which other occupants of the building had gathered. While attending to her bleeding nose, one of them saw a naked man come out of her flat and make his getaway downstairs, leaving a shoe, a shirt, and underpants behind.

Waterreus was approached by the police later that night He denied being in Merivale. but said nobody else had driven his car that night. Girl’s Evidence

The complainant, whose name was suppressed, described picking out Waterreus at a police identification parade on Christmas Day. Cross-examined, she said the light in her flat was on, at the time she saw the man, for a few seconds. His face was only about 6in from hers. She also saw the man for a few seconds when he came out oi her flat Mr Erber: When you identified him on the parade, you were in a state of hysteria? The witness: The hysteria was brought on by the fact of actually seeing him, that he was a human being. I put it to you, you thought that this was the man who | was in your room?—I thought I I knew this was the man, but 1 knew it was by the lines I down his face, his hair, his I colouring and his height 1 A man living in the house ■ described his attempt to get ■ into the girl's flat in response ■ to her screams, and subse-

quently taking the number of a car when it drove away from in front of the house. Cross-examined, the man said he was quite sure he had the right number. Waterreus, after giving evidence in which he denied the allegations against him, was cross-examined by Mr Roper. Asked to account for his car being seen at the Merivale address, he said his car was not there, and the wrong number had been taken.

Waterreus’s wife, Margaret Joyce Waterreus, gave evidence of her husband being home before 9 p.m. on Christmas Eve, and watching television. Defence Address Mr Erber, addressing the jury, said that the complainant was obviously a highlystrung girl, and hysterical at the identification parade. "It is very difficult for anyone in an over-wrought state to be quite sure of a person's identification,” said Mr Erber. Another witness was quite sure he had got the right car number—in fact, cocksure, said Mr Erber. He was one of those persons so cocksure that he would not even admit the possibility of a mistake—and yet those were the very persons often shown to be wrong.

Mr Roper, summarising the Crown's case, said that on the crucial issue of identification of the intruder, the defence contended that the complainant had been mistaken at the identification parade, and that another witness had been mistaken about the car number.

“And yet the mistaken man owns the car with the mistaken number,” said Mr Roper. "Surely that is just incredible?”

Man Admits Burglary After reversing in the Supreme Court yesterday a plea of not guilty on a charge of burglary, Wayne David Bert, aged 20, a workman, was remanded by Mr Justice Wilson for sentence tomorrow. Beri had been charged with burglary of the dwellinghouse of Judy Nancy O’Donnell, at 109 Chester street, on May 7.

Decision Reserved In Divorce Case

After a three-day hearing, decision was reserved by Mr Justice Macarthur in the Supreme Court yesterday in a defended divorce suit, evidence having been completed by the luncheon adjournment, and counsel addressing his Honour during the afternoon. The suit was brought by William Donk, a painter (Mr A. D. Holland), against Maria Geertruida Donk (Mr R. G. Blunt) on the ground of her alleged adultery—which she has denied—with Harold Joseph Voice, a poultry farmer (Mr G. S. Brockett), on February 1 last. Voice, giving evidence in the case yesterday, also denied any adultery with Mrs Donk.