"MOST REPREHENSIBLE"

Chronicle (Levin), 28 May 1946, Page 2

"MOST REPREHENSIBLE"

SYDNEY JUDGE CRITICISES - POLICE • Action of certain police was described as "most reprehensible" and a Crown Prosecutor was criticised by Mr. Justice " Owen in the State Full Court of Criminal Appeal • at Sydney. Holding that serious irregularities had occurred at the trial which might have resulted in a miscarriage of justice, ' the Court granted a new 'trial to William Robert -Bathgate, who had been convicted of mufder. ' ' Bathgate, aged. 47, farmer, of Forbes, was convicted at the Central Qriminal Court in March of the murder of Luigi Orilga and Mrs. Ethel Wells of Ryan, at Forbes, in 1935. , Bathgate had been put through a most rigorous and improper questioning lasting, from 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at Forbes police station on the day he was arrested last year, without being charged before. .a magistrate, said Mr. Jus- - tice Owen. The action of the police officers concerned was most reprehensible. At the trial serious irregularities had occurred. ' The Crown Prosecutor had suggested that Bathgate . had been conyicted of cattle stealing, which Bathgate denied. Later . in the trial the • Crown Prosecutor had . toki .the Court that he had been. wrongly instructed in regard ■ to -the cattle stealing, but by that ■ time the da-mage had pTobably been- done to Bathgate. Suggestions that Bathgate was a - 'violent'- ipan had been-made by the .' Crown Prosecutor in his addressand • certain witnesses had been . questioned- on the matter. Direct evidence of - his - violence had not been called and the suggestions were ihadmissible. ■ Mr. Justice Maxwell said that Crown -Prosecutors- ought to regard themselves as ministers of justice and • ought not t'o struggle for a conviction nor to be betrayed by feelings of professional superiority and a contest for skill and preeminence. He considered the trial was unsatisfactory and resulted m a miscarriage of justice. Counsel for Bathgate had claimed before the Full Court that the Crown prosecutor (Mr. C. V. Rooney) had improperly and unfairly conducted the trial and that the judge had wrongly admitted certain evidence.