This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
I created this article after discovering that it redirected to the Harvey and Jeanette Crewe page. It was very high profile case and considering the there is a book and film about it as well as Thomas receiving a Royal Pardon I thought that this article was justified. I am sure that there is sufficient info to get article beyond the stub stage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas did not receive "a royal pardon and compensation after being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for murder". He was granted a royal pardon on the basis that there was doubt as to the soundness of his conviction. This was not the same as anyone determining that the conviction and imprisonment was wrongful. Current police enquiries show that the police still believe that Thomas is guilty of the crime - he certainly remains the main suspect.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note there is a lack of references in this article - I will apply a tag. Can you contribute any references to enable editors to improve/substantiate the article? Clarke43 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence in our lead section does not actually say that the pardon was based on a finding of wrongful conviction, only that the pardon (and compensation) took place after the conviction and imprisonment. In fact the pardon itself essentially declared Thomas to be wrongfully convicted. (The Royal Commission report, on page 114, quotes the full High Court as saying that "He [Thomas] is, by reason of the pardon, deemed to have been wrongfully convicted.") So I think you (IP 203...) are mistaken. I do however agree with Clarke43 that our article should be more thoroughly referenced. The Royal Commission report provides a lot of information that would be useful for this. --Avenue (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More than one jury convicted Thomas. The last jury was in possession of all the facts known now. The conviction may have been unsound, and that is why he was pardoned. But to say that he was "wrongfully convicted" is unjustified. The Royal Commission may have used that term, but the wording is misleading. As with David Bain, the conviction may have been unsound, but was not necessarily unjustified. After all Thomas remains the primary suspect - indeed only suspect as all others were cleared. A pardon does not mean he is innocent of the crime.122.59.140.215 (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
