ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DETECTIVES

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27733, 10 August 1955, Page 14

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DETECTIVES

Counsel Begin Addresses To Commission

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, August 9. There was some impropriety in obtaining statements from Murdock Campbell Harris and DonaH Tames Ruka, and some physical coercion was used, said Mr K. L. Richardson, counsel for the two Maori youths, when addressing today the commission inquiring into the conduct of a group of Auckland detectives. Although the unfortunate affair might have arisen through over-work, lack of staff and supervision, or even from overzealousness, the facts were clear cut, he said. . The commission, which began its inquiry on July 28, is now' entering its final stages w ith addresses by counsel. If the evidence of the Maori youths was accepted, said Mr Richardson, there must have been some grave impropriety in obtaining the statements. If their evidence was not accepted, there was ample evidence to show’ that Judges’ Rules had not been strictly adhered to. Harris had throughout stuck to his story that he was hit. Ruka had said he w as hit six times, reduced it to “once,” and then said he was not hit. This admission might have been made through joy at being released from incarceration rather than from other motives.

Mr Richardson said it might amaze adult pakehas that the two youths should change their minds and elect to be tried in the Magistrate’s Court and idead guilty, but the commission was dealing with somewhat simple Maori youths of tender years. Tn the major evidence there was little difference between that of the detectives and the evidence of Ruka and Harris. On the question of assault the commission would have to accent one lot of evidence as against the other.

Discu c smg the statement taken from Ruka at the police station, counsel submitted that in the circumstances it could not have been a free and voluntary statement, as opportunity existed to put the words into his mouth Ruka thought that physical violence was intended, although mention of “breaking” him bv the detective might not have implied that. Counsel said he considered coercion or physical violence could also have been used in taking the first statement from Harris at Mangakino. The second statement, having been taken in question and answer form, was not free and voluntary, but was a crossexamination by the detective. The third statement was at the most a summary of the 37 charges. The detectives used modus operand! forms for that, and the statement was continued during Harris’s absence from the room. Recalling the journeys in the police cars with the two youths. Mr Richardson submitted that a proper check was not made of the allegations contained in the statements.

Department’s View Inspector W. R. Murray, who is on a watching brief for the Police Department. suggested that none of the evidence indicated in the slightest degree that departmental policy encouraged or condoned any wrongful practices. “Whatever may be thought,” he said, “of the evidence before the present commission, police policy throughout stands for law enforcement and its service to the public based upon fairness and the principles of British justice.” In keening with its custom and policy the department would take what further disciplinary action the circumstances justified. Inspector Murray mentioned that some time ago the Government, upon the recommendation of the ControllerGeneral of Police, set up a special committee of inquiry into police training. The report, containing recommenda-

tions on improved methods of initial and in-service training, had been furnished. and was being considered by the Government He considered that a copy of the report could be made available, for what interest the commission might find it was worth.

He also dealt with the duties of the police in law enforcement, and drew attention to their varied and complex duties. Utmost vigilance had to be exercised in seeking criminals and bringing them to justice, he said. Where offences were witnessed, that presented little difficulty. “But criminals in general practice do not commit their crimes in the full view of onlookers.” he said. “Rather do they work with stealth and cunning.” These cases formed the vast majority of crimes, and the police had to be watchful and diligent to see that all lawful means at their disposal were employed in pursuit of the wrongdoer. Where clues were meagre or nonexistent, members of the department were required to explore every possible avenue of inquiry with the utmost effort compatible with recognised standards of conduct.

Law enforcement, with its essential restrictions, however, must often require the police to go into positions of some vulnerability in their war against the unknown enemies of society. The twin duties of the police in adequately serving those who were wronged as well as those who wronged them had to be carefully balanced. The law met the position with the Judges’ Rules, which governed the conduct of the police in enforcing the Transfers of Officers Before the commission began to hear aodresses. Inspector F. N. Aplin, head of the Auckland Criminal Investigation Branch, said that unfortunately too many senior and experienced officers of the branch had been transferred out of Auckland in recent years Auckland, till recently, had been regarded as the country’s training ground for detectives, and the pool from which detectives were drafted to other centres, he said.

“Too litany of our senior and experienced men were taken away and replaced by young men, till I was forced to make Representations to the department,” said Inspector Aplin. He was questioned by Sir Vincent Meredith, a member of the commission. as to how many senior men he had lost in ’he last three years. The witii' s estimated that apart from resignations, some 12 to 15 experienced men had been taken away from Auckland. For greater efficiency, they should be replaced, he said. An attempt to build up Auckland’s strength was already in operation. Inspector Aplin was earlier questioned by Mr N. T. Gillespie, another member of the commission, about his plans for the Criminal Investigation Branch throughout the country. (Mr Aplin’s aopointment as superintendent of all C. 1.8. work is pending.) Mr Gillespie asked him if, in his new capacity, he had an opportunity for setting up a system of lectures and general and educational instructions for the C. 1.8., what he would have in mind

The witness referred to the report recently brought down bv the board of inquiry appointed by the Control-ler-General to investigate police training. He said he would follow it a lot in matters that applied to the C. 1.8. He honed ultimately to prepare a syllabus of training, including lectures by competent officers and non-commis-sioned officers of the branch. Intending detectives would be required to sit an examination paper to make sure that all young members, particularly, were made fully aware of all requirements. There would also be lectures and refresher courses for senior men. all in an effort “to bring maximum efficiency to the C. 1.8.” Centra] Training School The witness said he did not think a central training scheme for the C. 1.8. could be introduced immediately, but the ultimate aim was for a central training school. All this would probably have to be on a provincial basis first Practical work along with theory should be co-ordinated throughout New Zealand. The witness was asked by Mr Gillespie whether he advocated for, say. senior detectives and officers of high rank, scientific and technical training such as given overseas. He replied that he thought there was the wherewithal within New Zealand for this, quoting previous lectures on evidence and pathology given in Auckland by outside experts. Mr Gillespie asked Inspector Aplin whether he thought the report on police training would help the commission in its inquiries. The witness replied that the report might take a few years to put into operation fully, but he thought it would help the commission.

When the commission resumed this morning, Mr L. F. Moller, appearing for two of the detectives involved, asked Inspector Aplin whether he recollected any case similar to. that of Ruka and Harris occurring before in Auckland. To further questions by Mr Moller. Inspector Aplin said he could not recollect particulars of the case of Eric James Moroney, who was charged in 1947 on his own statement, and nothing else, with breaking and entering. Mr Moller said that eventually the charges were dismissed because Moroney had not committed the crime. Questioned by Mr W. H. Carson, S.M.. the chairman, about his decision to abondon the proceedings against Ruka and Harris, Inspector Aplin said he had wished to start afresh. Mr Carson: When charges are dismissed nothing further can be done. What do you mean by starting afresh? The witness: I could not support the charges. I wanted to analyse the position. Mr Carsori agreed that the whole position had been unsatisfactory, but that did not necessarily exonerate Ruka. Inspector Aplin replied that there was not sufficient evidence to take Ruka to trial. “I consider that when the detectives began the investigation they set off with a good purpose, but they were over-zealous in trying to break the crime of breaking and entering,” the witness said. “Unfortunately, they did not observe the proper procedure and principles in the interrogation of the prisoners, and in obtaining the statements. But I want to say that I am satisfied there was no ulterior motive on the part of any of the three men concerned.”