was considerable
-4
the
on appeal I directed that the trial should only proceed on/four counts
associated with the incidents of the 14th August, viz., murder, robbery,
control. of revolvers and control of ammunition. These I considered
could safely be left to the jury without any risk of confusion.
On the 6th May, before the trial commenced, the 1st and 6th
persons named above asked to be re-charged on the count of robbery and
thereupon pleaded guilty.
On the morning of the 25th June I commenced my address to the
jury, and at 12.30 p.m. on the 26th the jury retired.
}
9.10 p.m. after deliberating for approximately 9 hours.
They returned at
The seven
Those of them who had
persons named above were found guilty of murder. pleaded not guilty to, robbery were found guilty, and the 7th was also
found guilty on the arms and ainmunition charges.
At the conclusion of the Crown's case I had directed the jury
that they should find the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th not guilty on the arms
and ammunition charges, and left the charges so far as the others were
concerned with the jury. By a 6 - 1 majority they found the 1st and 5th
not guilty.
One of the others charged, the person in whose house the arms
and ammunition were found was found guilty on the arms and ammunition charges but not guilty (probably on my strong direction to that effect)
of the charges of murder and robbery. The remaining accused was found
not guilty on all counts.
The seven appealed and on the 2nd November, 1974 the Full Court
refused the appeal without calling on the Crown to reply to the argument
of counsel for the appellants.