Not guilty verdict in burglary charge

Press, 24 June 1983, Page 21

Not guilty verdict in burglary charge

A man whose axe was found outside a burgled Dunedin jewellery shop, from which rings worth almost $27,000 were stolen, was yesterday found not guilty of breaking and entering the shop. David John Niblett, aged 31, unemployed, had denied the charge of breaking into Weatherall Jewellers in George Street, Dunedin, on or about February 20.

The Court had heard that the defendant was arrested after he attempted to sell a ring in Christchurch the day after the burglary. Mr D. J. L. Saunders appeared for the Crown, and Ms E. Thompson appeared for the defendant before Judge Fraser and a jury. Under cross-examination from Mr Saunders, the defendant said that the ring he had tried to sell in Christchurch had belonged to his former wife and was not stolen. He said that when interviewed by the police, he had denied trying to sell the ring because he was “side of the police asking about rings all the time.” He did not produce the ring to the police at the time because his wife was wearing it, he said.

The defendant and his wife had come to Christchurch on February 21, the day after the jewellery shop in Dunedin had been burgled, to place a newspaper advertisement and not to dispose of stolen jewellery, he said.

He said he knew his fingerprint had been on the axe found at the scene of the burglary because his landlord had told him. The axe was his and had been stolen from his property, but he “just didn’t bother” to report the theft, he said. Dr Alan Metcalfe, a fingerprint researcher, told the Court that old fingerprints were more likely to show up in a fingerprint test than fresh fingerprints which could more easily be disturbed.

He said that fingerprints or glove marks left on the axe handle by a person other than the defendant might not have become apparent during a test.

He also said that the position of the print was consistent with a lefthanded person, such as the defendant, thrusting the axe into something. Making her final address to the jury, Ms Thompson said that there was no direct evidence to implicate the defendant.

No-one had ?een the defendant with an axe on the day of the burglary, and no rings had been found on the defendant or at his home, she said. She said Dr Metcalfe’s evidence suggested that the fingerprint could have been made before the burglary, when the axe was still in the defendant's possession. The Crown’s case had “pointed out some very sloppy police work,” Ms Thompson said. Mr Saunders told the jury that the evidence pointed to the defendant’s involvement in the burglary.

He quoted evidence given by the defendant’s landlord, Mr Leslie William Hughes, that he had not told the defendant about the fingerprints. Yet the defendant had known about the fingerprint and claimed Mr Hughes had told him, Mr Saunders said.