POLICE INQUIRY COMMISSION

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27498, 4 November 1954, Page 3

POLICE INQUIRY COMMISSION

Evidence By Director And Sub-Editor Of “Truth” •

DENIALS BY MR COMPTON AND MR CALLAGHAN

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, November 3. Evidence to test the credibility ,f certain wi nesses was given before the Police Inquiry Commission Wellington today. Before the evidence was taken the Commisjjon (Sir Robert Kennedy) impressed upon counsel that he was receiving the testimony to test credibility only, and what he heard would have no bearing otherwise on the proceedings. The two witnesses called by counsel assisting the commission (Mr C. Evans-Scott) were James Hamilton Dunn, of Wellington, a barrister and solicitor, who told the commission that he was also chairmsn of directors of Truth (New Zealand), Ltd., and James William Mahoney, sub-editor of “Truth.” At the sitting, the Commissioner of Police 'Mr H. E. Compton) was reprejeated by Mr H. R. C. Wild, qnd Mr g. Hardie Bovs appeared for 'SubImpector G. E. Callaghan. Mr Dunn said he had seen certain arsons regarding the matter before je Commission. He had seen Mrs King, wife of Mr E. A. King, on Norember 26. 1953. on the beach at Waianae. Mrs King was returning with mother woman from an expedition dong the beach. The witness was accompanied by a man named Hen•essy. a member of the staff of 'Truth.” He walked back along the besch with Mrs King and went to her home. Mr King was absent.

Mr Evans-Scott: Did you question her about supplies of groceries to members of the Police Force? the witness: Yes. Mr Evans-Scott: What did she tell you? The witness: She told me— Sir Robert Kennedy: I am not accepting this as proof of what happened. Ike evidence would be accepted onlv to estimate the view that should be taken of the evidence of another witgem. he added. The witness said there had been a general discussion as they walked along file beach. When they reached Mrs King's home he referred to a report be had received from Mr McCormick, a member of the staff of “Truth,” and eked whether it was correct. Alleged Gifts of Butter Mrs King told him, said the witness, that her husband had been in a bad state of health for some time and had taken up bookmaking to supplement bis income. She said she had given butter to a man called Ritchie, who introduced her to a man named Callaghan. Later Callaghan introduced her to Mr Compton. For a time she had given butter to Mr Ritchie, and then had received a request for sufficient butter for Messrs Compton and The witness said he thought Mrs King had said they supplied butter for 21b a week each for several weeks. At first it was delivered to Mr Ritchie and later Mr Compton railed at the shop for iV After some seeks Mr Compton had increased his demand for groceries and started bringing In typed lists of his requirements, Mrs Kins said. She had destroyed the ’ists when they left the shop. Mrs King said the lists started with items such as bags of flour and sugar, and

pld b S L I^ s a,s ° said Christmas* W Mr Com P ton each ness saM y h» M r . E vans-Scott, the whence ha l heard ° f 016 existsawMml&T n be£ ° re he

i.-j Ouns , el asked whether the witness had spoken to Mrs King about giving tad sTkod rePUed t£?hf u d , r ' and she had said she MrsKte h o JSa t( L speak to her husband, he him her husband would ™ Y?P“>Bton the following day toe a'dnnghim. On the foUowrine Wltness said, he had a Kmg™ 111 a man Wh ° said he wa s Mr What 1 Wanted ” the ~ J him that I thought 'he knew to do With it”' 1 WOnthflVe anythin g

The man had told him there was no advantage for him in coming forward to give evidence.

wi s iess sai< * he asked the man Whether the money had been extorted. He replied there had been no extor- _ I gave Mr Compton and Mr Callaghan I gave willingly,” the man said.

The man said if he gave evidence he would be -called a “squealer” and it would be thought that he was giving .evidence merely because the protection Which he had paid for had broken down.

Cross-examined by Mr Wild, the witness said he know Mr J. B. Ritchie, of Dannevirke. and the ‘Truth” reporter, Mr McCormick. ‘ He believed both Mr McCormick and Mr Hennessy were in “Truth’s” employ when they saw Mr Ritchie. They were also employees of “Truth” when they saw Mr King. The witness said that he knew Mr Wrigley, a former detective, knew he had left the Police Force, and knew he had taken up‘ employment with Truth” as a reporter. The witness denied that Messrs Ritchie and Wrigley had gone to see a Chinese called Chan Foo on his instructions. He had known they had gone to see the Chinese.

To further -questions, the witness said he went to see Mrs King as solicitor for “Truth.” He said he was a shareholder in “Truth” and was chairman of the board.

The witness said he had asked Mr Evans-Scott whether he could give evidence a week ago. Mr Roys: On your evidence and' on your recollection of what she has told you Mrs King either lied to you or committed perjury before tjie commission? v The witness replied that he was not, of course, offering any opinion about what he had been told. If Mr McCormick had approached Sub-Inspector Callaghan and offered

some inducement or form of immunity if Sub-Inspector Callaghan would give evidence other than the truth, it was without his knowledge, the witness said. Nothing of that sort had ever been discussed between him and Mr McCormick. Journalist’s Evidence James William Mahoney, a subeditor of “Truth,” said that about October of last year he was engaged on behalf of “Truth” in obtaining informatjon about hush money. In Oc-

tober certain Statements had been made in Truth \ about the matter, _ The witness said he knew that Michael Gerald Connor, a preW’taess,, before the commission. a bookmaker, it was not v a t he , himself was at one w?th e He had discussed mone? & n£ :onnor the matter of hush E on .f ocrasi ™ he had gone Connor a rto l! t nd Hote l lounge with Mr Connor On two occasions he had gone on which Mr Connor Wo or three occasions Hotel* 5 0161 Ml ’ Gonnor at *h e Waterloo

(ntof,H Evans ’ Scott: At one ot these w ? s any reference made regarding a ring of bookmakers? witness: Yes, Connor told me. had bert .Kennedy then said he n™ been recievmg .the evidence as but*in m no lhe credit of another witness, ° way as proof of the hearsay! hi™ r .r£ <> ? n ? r ' the witness said, told him about sfeven years ago . that he had OTganised a ring of bookmakers who Mr c °topton and SubInspector Callaghan £5O everv six tio°n P r °tection again prosecuhad said that he and his father started the rjng after he appealed to Sub-Inspector Callaghan when two bookmakers were expectmg jaids. He had said that he had Heu of e th2 1 l t np £so M be <2 aid by them iS u • ? S? 6 - Mr Connor had said ir^ro £ uced 13 men to the ring at Mr Connor had *ade donations to Mr of a ? d Sub-Inspector Callaghan .sides of bacon and bottles of had sa^“at Ms enlS °; £s° were all made in tteJ on?? 1 ® b ?;, n ?,. made at the detec” ing takfn to M el A neto ? and rome beng taxen to Mr Compton’s home.

■ List of Names given him e ? ‘5 at Connor bad bem st - °t names of memS A® a ££ tc b. George Brown, George La«v tioned e we^ ia M ett; Tw °. others menwere Mams and Wiseby Mr Connor saying thev were dead six m m^ths. the bookmake rs' ring each

Mr Evans-Scott: Did you ask ConnSght* be ahY ld t find me person who b bl to Venf y wha t he told

w l tness: No, but he said a friend to ve;iS e ° r n e , Brow . n - would be able verify all he said and probably would make a written statement to

n< M L Conno1 * told him ’ he added, "that Mr Brown was a bookmaker and had Mr Comptou and SubCallaghan sums of money. Mr Connor said that Mr Brown stopped the payments and had told Mr Compton and Sub-Inspector Callaghan that if he was prosecuted he Would tell the whole story in Court. ' Mr Connor telephoned Mr Brown from the Post Office Hotel, but could not reach him, the witness said. He arranged, added the witness, to meet Mr Connor and Mr Brown at the hotel on the following Saturday, but Mr Brown did nofr come. On the Wednesday of the next week he met Mr Connor at the hotel and Mr Connor telephoned Mr Brown to say he was bringing a friend to see him.

Connor and the witness wept to a house in Roy street, Newtown," where he was introduced to Mr Brown. Mr Connor explained why he had taken Mr Mahoney to see Mr Brown, and that Mr Mahoney was a “Truth” reporter. Mr Brown agreed that what Mr Connor had said about the bookmaking ring was correct. “The three of us had a general discussion along the lines of what Connor told me, and Brown said Connor could tell me theT lot because he had started the ring going,” said the witness. “As far as I can recall, Brown said he estimated he had paid Compton and Callaghan about £3OO over a period. “Later Refused to Pay”

“He said he had later refused to pay them any more, and threatened to give the whole story in Court if he was prosecuted. After that he was

not prosecuted and since then he ha 3 given up bookmaking.” Mr Evans-Scott: Connor said the purpose was to discuss your resuming as a bookmaker. The witness: There is no truth in that—l never intended taking up bookmaking. To Mr Wild, the witness said he saw Mr Connor six or seven times trying to get evidence against Mr Compton. He saw Mr Brown only once. To Mr Boys, the witness said that he had not been engaged on inquiries about any matters now before the inquiry, but had reported his conversations with Mr Connor and Mr Brown to his editor. Mr Boys asked whether the witness had committed to writing the evidence Mr Connor and Mr Brown had given him, and got them to sign it, or asked them to make a statutory declaration before a Justice of the Peace. The witness: That was the whole purpose of my further visits. Connor told me at first that he would sign a statement, but after seeing an announcement that there would be no immunity to witnesses he refused to do so. Half a dozen bottles of beer had been taken with them when they went to visit Mr Brown, said the witness. It was at Mr Connor’s suggestion that that was done. Mr Boys: Is Connor a man always to be found sober? The witness: I have seen him when he has had a few drinks. Have you seen him sober? —Many times. The witness told Mr Boys that in Hill street he had run *an apartment house. He was not associated with a man named Fox in any -business there. Mr Fox and his wife had visited his wife and himself, said the witness. He denied that he had ever engaged in bookmaking and said he had not been associated with Mr Fox in a bookmaking business in Hill street. ‘Truth” had run articles in October, 1953, about having information about payments to police officers. It was not until November that the witness tried to get statutory declarations from Mr Connor and Mr Brown. Mr Compton’s Denials Denials that he had ever been a party to any transactions involving improper dealings in butter or the receipt of bribes from bookmakers were repeated by the Commissioner of Police in evidence before the commission. Mr Compton said he had made some purchases from a Karori grocery run by Mr E. A. King and his wife, but had never received any goods that had not been paid for at the full retail price. Led by his counsel, Mr Compton said he first met Mr and Mrs King during inquiries into the Wilkins murder case, probably about June, 1947. The witness was engaged in inquiries into the murder with SubInspector G. E. Callaghan. Wilkins

3 at one time had a garage alongside Mr and Mrs King’s store. They had - just called into the shop for Subs Inspector Callaghan to buy groceries. The witness said that he went back a to the shop two or three times and - bought groceries. His orders would be for '£4 to £5 worth of groceries. v The goods were paid for in cash at S the ordinary retail prices. He bought goods there because when making inquiries it was always a good policy 1 to make friends and because one or s two types of scarce goods could be e obtained from the store if they were “ bought with grocery orders. 1 “Ip particular, did you get any butter you didn’t pay for?” asked Mr s Wild. 5 “No,” replied the witness. } At that time, the witness said, he * had no knowledge that Mr Kling was - bookmaking. The witness said he had never re- ’ ceived butter from Mr Ritchie (a former detective), and had never » asked him to get butter. The witness said that Mr Ritchie > had been tried out as a detective, and > on two occasions had accompanied Sub-Inspector Callaghan and the wit1 ness on bookmaking raids. r Mr Wild said that Mr Ritchie had i said that he had Deen on bookmaking > raids with Mr -Compton and SubInspector Callaghan, that watches had j been synchronised, and had been asked to make telephone calls at ceri tain times to certam numbers.

r Synchronising of Watches The witness said that watches were j always synchronised by Sub-Inspector t Callaghan and himself, in case they j had to give evidence. It was normal, 5 good police practice, and there was [ nothing significant about it. He had » never instructed Mr Ritchie to make telephone calls. There had been no disagreement [ with Mr Ritchie over butter, said the t witness. There was no hostility between them. It was simply a question ‘ of the witness keeping Mr Ritchie up I to his work and seeing that he did ; it correctly. J The witness said he had prosecuted , J. N. G. Connor for bookmaking, and ’ he had been convicted. He had also .prosecuted Mr Connor’s father, and he had been convicted a number of times. To Mr C. Evans-Scott, counsel 5 assisting the commission, the witness ’ said the only record of bookmakers ; was a list of convicted bookmakers ’ produced when the Gaming Commission was sitting. He did not think Mr J King’s name would be on it, because ‘ Mr King had not been convicted at that time. 1 Mr Evans-Scott: Both you and Cal- ' laghan knew large numbers of book- ’ makers who were not convicted? The witness: That is hard to answer, i We had so many places to go, and I heard so much about bookmakers, s Because of the number of convictions , gained, a volume of information about i alleged bookmaking was received by - the police, the witness said. Persons ; with a grudge had alleged that some-

: one was bookmaking, but on its being i checked the allegation would be found • not true. He could not say who were . bookmakers who had not been con- : victed. I “Big Bookmakers” 1 Mr Evans-Scott asked whether Mr ■ Donaldson was one of the big book- » makers, and the witness replied that « he could only answer as a in the f street by saying that Messrs Donaldson, ' Scott, and Martindale could be de- • scribed as big bookmakers. ! To further questions from Mr Evans5 Scott, the witness said he knew nothing of any arrangement with Mr Donr aldson for the latter to be raided at ■ his home. He doubted whether an arrangement had ever been made. He had not known Mr Donaldson was op- > erating in Woodward street. It was > known, however, that Mr Donaldson had a carrying business in Woodward . street. t To Sir Robert Kennedy, the witness • said that the decision to raid Mr Donaldson at Kelburn would have been his responsibility. He would have set the raid under way that day. To further questions, . the witness , said the statement made before the commission by Mr Ritchie that he had been dropped off at slot telephones while Sub-Inspector Callaghan and the witness drove off to raid bookmakers was “entirely untrue.” Referring to evidence given by De-tective-Sergeant W. J. Mason, the witness said he had given instructions for the covering note signed “J.G.” to be filed in Sub-Inspector J. Gibson’s personal file because he did not consider it called for an explanation from a commissioned officer of the police. He did not know it was Sub-Inspec-i Gibson's letter, but had asked for it to be filed in case if was required in any inquiry—such as the one now being held. Sub-Inspector in Box Sub-Inspector Callaghan said in evidence that he first met Mr King when he called on him to make ’ inquiries about a place almost opposite his store. At Mr Ritchie’s request he hpd given Mr King one or two orders for groceries “to help him along,” as he was a friend or Mr Ritchie’s. He had never received free butter from Mr King. Mr Evans-Scott: Referring to the evidence you have heard today and ; the statements attributed to Brown i and Connor, is there any truth in i them? The witness: None whatever. In 1946, what was the difference in rank between you and Mr Compton?— I was a detective-sergeant and he was senior-detective. Were you ever of equal rank?—Yes, I think we might have been. The witness denied‘that he had ever [ received butter or groceries free from 1 Mr King. • Mr Evans-Scott: Why go to King ; when he was not your regular grocer? The witness: Because he was a great 3 friend of Ritchie’s. - The witness said that he first learnt 1

! that Mr King was a bookmaker when i he was arrested in 1951. Questioned by Mr Boys, the witness • denied all knowledge of £5O he was said to have received from Mrs Heron as part of a reward for conviction of . a sly grog seller. This amount was . alleged by Mr Ritchie in evidence to ; have been paid to Sub-Inspector CalJ laghan out of a sum he had received , from Mrs Heron. The witness said that ■ he had heard of the incident only two or three months ago from Mrs Heron’s . husband. % In answer to a further question by Mr Boys, the witness said that Mr King ; had a prosperous grocery business. He i owned a racehorse, and the witness ’ had seen him at the races, and these ■ things did not raise a suspicion of 1 bookmaking. Alleged Offer of Immunity The witness said that an offer of i immunity had been made to him by a “Truth” reporter, Mr McCormick, i if he would “put all my cards on the table and tell all I know about Compton.” He said the offer had 1 been made by Mr McCormick after ! arranging a meeting on October 24 as ‘ a result of a telephone call. 1 The witness said he had met Mr ; McCormick at the Dominion Farmers’ Buildtfig. Mr McCormick was in “Truth’s” car. Mr McCormick had told him “Truth” had definite evidence ' that the witness had been on the , payroll of three bookmakers—Donaldson, Marris, and White. Mr McCormick had offered him immunity if he told all he knew about Mr Compton. He said, “Compton thinks he’s got God in his corner, and I’ve got ‘Truth’ in my corner.” The witness added that Mr McCormick had also said that a newspaper editors’ meeting at Dunedin had decided on a concerted line of action against Mr Compton. If he did not give evidence his name would be “smeared.” Mr McCormick had told > him there was going to be ah inquiry, and he would be “in the gun” i unless he put all his cards on the table about Mr Compton. ! After Sub-Inspector Callaghan’s 1 evidence the commission adjourned . until 10 a.m. on Monday.