POLICE INQUIRY COMMISSION

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27496, 2 November 1954, Page 3

POLICE INQUIRY COMMISSION

Sub-Inspector Asked To Explain Finances

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, November 1. that he had given to J? 1 bookmakers letters “ * Bt fo d “<*ion to detectives in rlven fe y Snb-Inspec-mF-JS I®® 1 ®® J s,^ son before the Com. “£‘n7t to O day. Ilqniry toto Gibson also adat rece ived a loan £l *p<* paid in bank .notes from Stt Robert Do “ ld »on, to assist in the purchase of a house. At the time of . I ? a ? ?? r Donaldson had been business for some time, he H„%.£? 1< L t £ at >. t, * e letters of introdnction had been given to the other man, Percival Murray White, who at the time was wellknown as the part-owner of Dalray, so that Mr White would not be ®°*, I*y 1 *y™ iSed *? y Wa New Zealand conmctlons when he went to see Uie horse run in the 1952 Sydney

~ C, Evans-Scott, counsel assisting the commission, said when this mornwg s hearing opened that the present tlh! Dg for takmg evidence on cer- ?° nce ratog Sub-Inspector Gibson that it was considered called for an explanation. .™~' I K! pecto , r - Gibscm. like practically every other police officer who had been investigated, had decided to assist the commission by co-operating with the financial investigations, said Mr Evansocott. Both his wife and he had supplied information and signed all the authorities required to enable the investigators to complete the task. «vS S ti,® O 7° perat J o J. has ’ o£ course, fo.Tnifo.j *!? e , o£ tbe commission and facilitated the task for which I express my appreciation,” Mr Evansocott added. ♦o?? . were « however, certain matters arising out of the investigations concerning which Sub-Inspector Gibson was being called-upon for information. investigations have disclosed nottnng that has not been satisfactorily explained,” said Mr Evansco"°Peration of Sub-Ihspec-Mr Donaldson had ened p “e mvestigators to verify that Jnfri/iL 4 ? 0 J oan was a genuine loan, made in fact on the day stated.

Evidence About Loan »J Vlr *f > ? n £ I< 2 son said « in the witness box, that before coming to Wellington ha 4 been . convicted of bookmaking three times in Dunedin. On *h e three occasions he had been caught y SubInspector Gibson, then a detective. Mr Donaldson said he had given up bookmaking in December, 1945. Mr Evans-Scott: Nothwithstanding that, you are good friends? The witness: We’ve been friends for 27 years. To further questions, the witness Tidnn h F« ™ nt Sub-Inspector Gibson £l4OO in May, 1952, to complete the Purchase of a house in Scarborough terrace, Karon. At that time, the witness said, he had a bank account but the advance was handed oyer in notes. The witness explained that he had been seriously ill for three months, and confined to bed. x h-Inspectiar Gibson had seen him at his home, and he had had the cash xn his house.

Mr Evans-Scott: Was there any request from Sub-Inspector Gibson that it should be made in cash? The No, sir. To further questions, the witness said he was hot aware that on the day of the advance £l7OO had been paid into Sub-Inspector Gibson’s bank account. He knew, however, that Sub-Inspec-tor Gibson had needed £2OOO to complete the purchase. To Mr Evans-Scott the witness said he had been to Australia on six or seven occasions. The last time was in September, 1949. Ip 1949, Sub-Inspec-tor Gibson had given him a letter to & member of the Police Force in Sydney. The man’s name was Aldridge, and the

Witaess had already met him while he and another were in New Zealand undar « Police exchange scheme. The witness said he had by this tu “e developed a strong friendship with Sub-Inspector Gibson and his 'XJ? e ’ < ? nd Sub-Inspector Gibson probably thought Aldridge would take him - around. He denied that Aldridge had ever taken him to a race meeting, though he himself had attended efery meeting. . “Y°JJ Tre aiiowed to go in Australia,’ he added. “With bookmaking convictions, no-one could attend a meeting in New Zealand.” To further questioning by Mr Evans-Scott, the witness said he had ?£“f o ‘’ e ® n J e , pa J d £ls ° on March 18r 1953, by Sub-Inspector Gibson. He n?,l.J ung Sub-Inspector Gibson in Dunedin and asked him whether he could repay some of the loan. Sixty pounds interest had been due in a u h °, rt , P er ‘Od. Sub-Inspector Gibson had told him that all he had available was £isn a ,

was £l5O. A cheque had subsequently been sent The witness said , he had subsequently assigned that . loan and another loan to his brother t in ’ in part Payment of a Security for Loan [ Cross-examined by Mr W. Gazley, counsel for Sub-Inspector Gibson, the , Wl teess sa id the loan was a typewritten document supported by secur- . tty over five or six insurance policies. ; He said it was a perfectly normal • business transaction. To further examination by Mr Evans-Scott the witness said the interest for the loan was 4J per cent. He agreed the loan was of the type made to a friend. “I have made several loans to friends—some to my sorrow,” he said. To the commission (Sir Robert Kennedy), the witness said that apart from his three convictions in Dunedin, had been two convictions in Wellington. In these cases Mr CompJ,°£m a S d ,>. Inspector Callaghan had handled the cases.

To further questions from Sir Robert Kennedy, the witness said he had discontinued bookmaking in Decem™’»l^s’.aa^I,Uch he had been engaged in other occupations. He had definitely finished bookmaking before he made a loan to Sub-In-spector Gibson in 1952. Finding of Letter William John Mason, a detectivesergeant stationed at Wellington, recalle<l , n . evidence how he had searched the home of Mr White, who was later arrested and charged with bookmaking, and Anally convicted. The witness described finding a cerdboard box under a cocktail bar m the sitting room. In it were photo,and var ious papers. Mr White became “very excited” and seized the box, saying that they were nFJ? a i G P a P ers and photographs, and them^ e n ° £o i°°k through

r 3 handed it back to him because I had already seen what I wanted “ Jh'witness continued. Mr White then hurriedly looked through the contents of the box and seemed more relieved. He did not know that the witness had removed a typed piece of paper, and obviously did not know that the witness had it The witness then produced the paper he referred to. It was dated Apnl 7, 1952, addressed “Dear Percy.” and signed “J.G.” At the time, the witness said,- 4ie was not sure who “J.G.” was, but he recognised the type and the manner of typing and concluded they were me initials of Sub-Inspector James Gibson. He had included the letter rep ? rt the flle ’ but later, inst u Uctlon x Superintendent Thompson, he put in a mrif report on the letter separately. To Mr Gazley the witness said he did not suggest that there was anything better, and he agreed cSSI d w ®™ nte d action against bub-inspector Gibson, action would have been taken at the time.

O Sob-Inspector’s Evidence A • w S Mb-Inspector Gibson, questioned by Mr Evans-Scott, said he had been 31 years in the Police Force, and had been stationed at Dimedin since January, 1953. Between February, 1949, and the w d n of * 1952 , he bad been stationed at Wellington, becoming chief detective in + G- He had oeen in charge of the detection of bookmakers. He had a U a on duties m 1948, and had spent two months in Sydney and one month in Melbourne. He had workted with various squads, and had become friendly with Australian police officers. ,„'Jh e witness said he had known Mr White before he came to Wellington. He had met him at Invercargill, where Mr White had been interested in a skating rmk. Covering letters of introduction had been given by him to Mr White because Mr White was going on a trip to Sydney. Mr White had telephoned him after another detective—Detective Black, ,

now at Palmerston North—had also approached him on Mr White’s behalf. “It was common knowledge that Mr White was half-owner of a horse called Dalray,” said, the witness. “They were Australia for the Sydney Cup. in 1952. In the party were Mr Neville his partner, and in whose name the horse was raced, the jockey, Nuttall, and Nuttall s father, who used to work with me, and Who was on retiring leave from the Police Force.” Mr White was concerned about whether he would be allowed on the Australian courses, in view of his conviction for bokmaking in New Zealand. He knew that he (Sub-Inspec-tor Gibson) had performed duty at Sydney. In Australia, however, they did not enforce the law relating to prohibited Sersons at race courses as was done in ew Zealand, except in the case of pick-pockets, confidence men, and others "there to take people down," the witness said. He had written letters of- introduction for other persons besides 1 Mr White, including bank officials and . publicans.

“Approach Should be Personal” Mr Evans-Scott drew attention to the “Dear Percy,” and the witness replied that that was all part of the make-up of a detective—“if he had anything under his hat” his approach should be personal. He agreed that the wording of the covering nbte was, “Please find enclosed letters of introduction to two of the boys in Sydney.” Asked whether he had ever raided Mr White’s house, the witness said: : he had not, but he had given instructions on one occasion to raid it.

The witness said he had'also given Mr Donaldson a letter of introduction to Sydney and Melbourne. He had been at a gathering before Mr Donaldson went to Australia, but he dented that there were any bookmakers there. Those present had been "very prominent men,” including Mr F. P. Walsh. The witness was then questioned by Mr Evans-Scott about the house he bought in Karori. The price was £4OOO, and stamp duties and legal expenses amounted to about another £lOO, He had raised a first mortgage of £2OOO. borrowed £l4OO from Mr Donaldson, leaving £7OO he had to find himself.

The £l4OO obtained was as stated by Mr Donaldson. He did not think he had asked Mr Donaldson that he take the advance in cash. He thought that Mr Donaldson gave him the money in notes because he had the ready money in hand. Mr Evans-Scott said that perusal of the bank account showed £l9OO in cash—£soo more than the £l4OO lent by Mr Donaldson—had been deposited on May 29. In addition there was £ 100 paid to Castle and Castle, and the two deposits of £lOO into the bank account on April 8 and June 3. He asked where the money had come from. The witness: That represents 30 , years’ savings. He added that he had j opened his bank account in Invercar- . gill with a deposit of £5O before he i sailed for Australia on September 14, 1948. This money had subsequently It

Australia for his ife had deposited a further *<l4 into the account on October 6. witness was then shown copies counts OWn and iS bank ®ci«£ OU S. Sel < You say the £BOO you Put savings® USe repreSents 30 years’ The witness: Yes. In 1948 there must have been a fair portion of it saved up?—Yes. a °* Money in House wh ?re the money had been kSJ? i? e . w *tness said the savings had t*een kept in the house by his wife, Sw the family He him- « was kep? bee ” aWare of the place ni’ h^.f v S n r Sco i. t: Yet ? ou - a detective of the Police Force, kept your lif«» “X!? 85 ix ? house? y

sald n m igbt seem strange, but he was continually “harp--2 . at „ hlE wife to start a bank a?nne n^n^ OW L e * ,er ’ she had “ever opened sh e was a beneficiary from an estate and had had to open an account to cash the cheque I had he said bis wife .a opened the account on Mav 8 194 R with a cheque for £3OO. ’ ’ re f«rred to Sub-In- I a£rt Ct 2«-j GI J?? on J s faank account again on Anril S « ot . £lo ° On the first Sln ce 1948. Percv P WhiL t ? e > ltae ss had handed letter of introduction Msit to A h? ril K B made the flrst deP ha ” k account since 1948. de “ed that £lOO had White borrowed from Mr _ The witness said he had borrowed money from Mr Donaldson but Sr 28 a yetrs” an h<! had knOWP f ° r

Asked where he had got the £lOO I it* e un himL?? id have „ hlmself • He did not give his I wife every penny. For instance, he I in the last I had been paid into I hank account, only because he I by cheque 16 money from the T.A.B. I U QUeSti °" S *bout his I savings, the witness said that his wife I had always kept her wardrobe locked. 1 He hed never gone to the Wardrobe. I In fact, he had never, gone to her I specifically directed to. I The £BOO, he agreed, was substantially I all his wife had. > I

su KJ est io n I got money from White is ridiculous, the witness said. , I would refute that anywhere.” ■ Counsel said that examination of the witness s accounts showed £lOO had been paid to Castle and Castle on the house, and £5OO had been paid into) 5?J’¥ k J ? e sdme da y- A further £lOO had been paid, in on April 8 •and another £lOO, on June 3. He sought an explanation for Sub-Inspec-tor Gibsons possessing the £BOO and yet paying it in that way. '. Tbe witness said it was the way the bank required it. Mr Evans-Scott: Do you definitely deny that you obtained any one of these deposits as a loan? The witness: Definitely.

Betting on Horses To further questions, the witness said he made occasional bets on horses. In February he had asked a friend passing through Wellington to place £5 on a horse called Waratah racing at Bulls. He had subsequently received a cheque £dl J*?" 1 tbe T-A.B. The same thing had happened when he got a I cheque for £ll7 for winning the] double at Palmerston North. - Counsel asked how long the witness had been lodging bets outside the places he worked. The witness: Thirty-odd years. Before the introduction of the T.A.8.. he replied to further questions, he had asked friends or relatives in centres where meetings were held to place bets for him.

‘Tve never had a bet with a bookmaker in my life.” the witness said. He added that he had sometimes lodged bets-with bookmakers to get evidence. To Mr Gazely, the witness said that ie introduction for Mr White was at

the request of Detective Black. Although the letter must now be in possession of the department he had ” ot . been .asked to explain. Another .such testimonial had been given in conjunction with Mr Nalder. ‘ After the purchase of the house at Karori, the witness’s affairs had been investigated by the Income Tax Department. The department had been | satisfied with the investigation of his affairs. Mr Evans-Scott said that, with the exception of a witness on whom it had not been possible so far to serve a I subpoena, that was all the evidence 11 to be called on this matter. —Robert Kennedy then adjourned !• the hearing until 10 a.m. tomorrow. 1