Jury Refuses to Convict Boakes on Purely Circumstantial Evidence

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 210, 24 November 1927, Page 15

Jury Refuses to Convict Boakes on Purely Circumstantial Evidence

BUR WOOD MURDER CHARGE FAILS (Special to THE SUE) ~ CHRISTCHURCH, Wednesday. AFTER a retirement of only three-quarters of an hour this afternoon the jury found Charles William Boakes not guilty of the murder of Ellen Gwendoline Isobel Scarff at Burwood on or about June 15. On the charge of supplying a noxious drug to the girl—if the police decide to proceed with it—Boakes was remanded to November 30, bail of £IOO, on bis own recognisance, being allowed.

y£R. C. S. THOMAS, for the defence, said that it would be foolish of him

to blind himself to the fact that the case had created the greatest interest in the city. It would be foolish of him to blind himself to the fact that the case had been discussed from one end of the Dominion to the other, and that there had been a wild and universal call for blood which was a disgrace to the country to which we belonged. Never .in his experience, and he was sure that never in the experience of his learned friend, had those whose duty it was to see that the streams of justice ran clearly, failed so in their duty. Never had

they, for the sake of creating a sensation and getting pence from the public, prejudiced a man to such an extent. Rumour had been piled upon rumour until a campaign of slander had been started that had threatened to engulf the accused. The jury must forget what they had heard in the street.

“One of the first rules of British justice was that the jury must convict or acquit on the evidence placed before it. Unless you do listen to rumour, unless you do take notice of what you have heard outside, unless, in other words, you fail in the oath you have taken, I say you have got to bring back a verdict of not guilty,” said Mr. Thomas.

Continuing, counsel said that the evidence in the case was purely circumstantial. The whole of the Crown case rested on the relationship of the parties. Counsel admitted that Boakes was a friend and a close friend of the girl since childhood, but where did that get-them? It got them nowhere. Was Boakes to be regarded as murderer because he was a friend of the girl? That was not argument. For five months the Crown had been searching the town with a small comb to find out what Boakes was doing. Had they searched as hard to find out if the girl had other men friends ? There was no connection between Boakes and the spanner nor between Boakes and the overcoat. So far as Miss Usher’s evidence was concerned he did not suggest that she lied about the coat, but

some witnesses, and especially women witnesses, were liable to take the centre of the stage. "SMASHED CASE FOR CROWN” Dealing with the evidence of the boy Mugford, Mr. Thomas said that the Crown would like him to be called “the hoy who discovered the murder,” but he suggested, that he should be called “the boy who discovered the murder and also saw the murderer at the scene of the murder.” There was a sort of veiled suggestion that Mugford was not telling the truth, but his story rang true. Mr. Thomas put it to the jury that the man Mugford saw was the murderer and he was pleased to say that that man was not Boakes. If the man Mugford saw was not the murderer, why did he mn away, and what was he doing there? Mugford’s story absolutely smashed the case of the Crown.

Refei-ring to the evidence regarding drugs, Mr. Thomas said it had always been obscure, even before King went back on his statement, but now King had withdrawn his original statement. Obviously King was a liar. If the statement King made now was true, then his statement in the Magistrate’s Court •was untrue. King therefore was unreliable. There was no evidence that accused gave drugs to the girl. “Before you can find Boakes guilty,” he concluded, “you have to find that he was an absolute fiend, and what evidence Is there that he has shown any traits of cruelty? Every witness I questioned said that Boakes was a kindly man, a decent man with women and children. The characteristics that must have been present to make a man commit such a brutal murder are absent in the case of Boakes. If the crime was committed at midnight it was extraordinary that the man should have gone back on the taxi stand at 5.30 a.m. -and showed no signs in his eyes or his manner of having committed such a tigerish murder. The evidence showed that when Boakes came on the stand that morning he carried, out his duties in the ordinary way, yet the Crown would have you believe that a few hours after this tigerish murder Boakes showed no signs of having committed it.” JUDGE’S WARNING TO JURY In the course of his summing-up, the Judge saTd he was sure that, in view of the extreme gravity of the charge, the jury would recognise that it was necessary to examine the facts with great care. He wished to emphasise the warning already given to the jury that, owing to the mischievous rumours that had been circulated in connection with the case there was always the danger of unconscious bias that might easily operate to the prejudice of the accused unless a vigilant watch was kept against it by the jury.

In this, as in all cases of crime, the onus of proof rested on the Crown. It had been suggested to them that it was better for a guilty man to escape than that one innocent -man should suffer. The true rule, however, was that every person was innocent until _ was proved guilty, and that no innocent person should be placed in danger of being convicted wrongfully. He quoted illustrations of the danger of forming conclusions from circumstantial evidence. He was sure the jury would not .hang a cat on King’s evidence. The jury retired at 4.12 p.m., and returned three-quarters of an hour later with a verdict of not guilty on the murder charge.