Supreme Court Verdict Of Guilty On Robbery Charge (Press, 21 February 1957)

On 21 February 1957, a Supreme Court jury found four men guilty of robbery against Eric Anthony McAlpine. The accused were Kevin Barry Crannitch, aged 23, Ivan Stewart Davey, aged 18, Colin Clive Worters, aged 21, and George William Thomas, aged 23. The offence occurred on 25 November 1956, during which the victim was robbed of a wristwatch, a fountain pen, and £2 in cash, totalling £20 and 9 shillings. Justice Adams remanded the men for sentencing following the jury's decision. Throughout the trial, defence counsel for the accused raised objections regarding the admissibility of statements made to police. Justice Adams ultimately ruled that the statements from three of the accused were admissible, while Crannitch did not provide a statement. The proceedings were expedited to avoid jurors being influenced by external information over the course of the trial. Detective John Stafford Ashby provided crucial evidence, describing the timeline and interactions between the accused and the victim. According to Ashby, Davey claimed he and Crannitch had attended a party and did not know the district. After leaving the party, they encountered two girls and took a taxi with them before proceeding to Cathedral Square. In a later statement, Davey recounted meeting McAlpine, who was then assaulted by the group under the impression he was a homosexual. Davey did not sign this statement, however, indicating a lack of willingness to admit to the crime. Worters detailed in his statement how he and Thomas were approached by a man in a lavatory who offered them a lift. The interaction escalated when the man was pulled from his van by the accused, and they searched his pockets. They subsequently discarded the stolen items, which included the victim’s shoes. The court heard from Sergeant Albert William Rex Ball, who corroborated the circumstances leading to the arrest of the men. Constable Thomas Edward Stuart also provided evidence regarding the identification of the accused by McAlpine shortly after the assault. During closing arguments, prosecution counsel P. T. Mahon argued that the evidence submitted by the accused amounted to confessions of robbery. Defence counsel for Thomas contended there was insufficient evidence to connect him to the robbery itself, as he had been identified based solely on statements made after the fact. The jury deliberated from 8.25 p.m. and returned with their guilty verdict by 9.50 p.m. They did not render verdicts on alternative charges of assault with intent to rob or common assault, to which the accused had pleaded not guilty. The atmosphere surrounding the trial reflected broader social considerations, particularly as aspects of the case involved perceptions about homosexuality, which played a minor role in the justification for the assault. The final outcome left the accused facing sentencing in the coming days.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand