ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DETECTIVES

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27734, 11 August 1955, Page 16

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DETECTIVES

Inquiry Commission Ends Sitting

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, August 10. The comriTSsion that has been inquiring since July 28 into the arrest and prosecution of the two Maori youths, Murdoch Campbell Harris and Donald James Ruka, finished its sitting today. It consists of Mr W. ft- Carson, S.M. (chairman), Sir Vincent Meredith, and Mr N. T. Gillespie. The commission was set up after Mr H. Jenner Wily, S.M. had dismissed the breaking and entering charges against Harris and Ruka after allegations against the conduct of the investigating detectives. . . Thanking counsel for their assistance to the commission, Mr Carson said at the end of the inquiry that it would have been impossible to investigate the matter under consideration more fully than had been done. The commission would report its findings in due course.

Failure by the authorities to give Harris and Ruka immunity from prosecution had considerably hampered the work of the inquiry, said Mr B. Sinclair, counsel for Detective A. B. A. Hodkinson, when he addressed the commission today. Mr Sinclair said that if the youths had been given immunity there would have been extra evidence on which the commission could have acted. Mr Sinclair said that counsel had been faced with continual claims for privilege, and they had come unexpectedly in some instances. “The authorities should have taken some action to ensure that all available evidence was before the commission,” he said. Mr Sinclair said that at one stage the youths stayed at the Maori hostel. He wondered what the Maori welfare officers were doing, he said. If the officers paid attention to their work the possibility of the proceedings would have been greatly diminished. “Harris and Ruka are accomplished liars,” said Mr Sinclair. “They lied to everyone and right throughout the proceedings they showed a facility to resort to cunning and deceit.” Ruka had lied about being struck, he said. There were varying accounts on how many times he had been hit and where he was hit. “Was Never Struck” “The inevitable conclusion is that he was never struck,” said Mr Sinclair. “It is clear that neither of these boys was struck or subjected to any threats.” Ruka and Harris had been “scrounging” for money at the police station after their release on bail, said Mr Sinclair. “Are these the actions of a person frightened of the police?” he asked. The third stateme? t taken from Harris was the only one about which there could be any question, con“nued Mr Sinclair. The detectives had decided to take a short cut, to use a shorthand typist. Harris was still at liberty not to sign the statement. Mr Sinclair submitted that the detectives were not culpable to any degree that required censure. Their only failing was in accepting the admissions of the two youths. Senior-Detective J- B. Finlay had said that he would do the same. Counsel said that Inspect/.. F. N. Aplin had ordered the withdrawal of the charges in “a somewhat highhanded manner.” All his actions after J. * a t Taheke suggested a self-justification expedition,” said Mr Sinclair. He had taken no steps to see whether the youths could be identified, whether any of the stolen proP ef ty could be traced, or whether one or both of the youths committed any of the offences. “Inspector Aplin was justifying his actions and criticising those of his junior officers,” said Mr Sinclair. “The detectives did not fail in their duty to a greater extent than their director.” Mr Moller's Submissions Mr L. F. Moller submitted that his clients, Acting-Detectives C. A. Jackson and W. McCracken, should be given unqualified clearances of the allegations against them. Referring to the allegations by Ruka against Detective McCracken, Mr Moller submitted that it would not be difficult for the commission to reach a decision quickly. And the result must be the unqualified clearance of Detective McCracken. The evidence clearly established that Detective McCracken was not in the room when Ruka wag first interviewed.

so he could not have hit Ruka as alleged. Ruka had told many and varied stories and could not be believed. “He is an unmitigated liar,” said Mr Moller. Mr Moller said that Harris had alleged that Detective Jackson had assaulted him at Mangakino on June 8, but here again Detective Jackson was entitled to an unconditional clearance. An analysis of the evidence showed that Harris’s story was completely untrue. His story was full of inconsistencies, and was unsupported. Counsel reminded the commission of the evidence of other police officers at Mangakino that at the time of the alleged assault Harris was quite cheerful. Nothing improper occurred in the methods used to interview Ruka and Harris before statements were taken from them, he said. The trips around Auckland were made td test Ruka’s and Harris’s knowledge of the breaks, and they had revealed a knowledge of what had taken place, said Mr Moller. Both Ruka and Harris were merely suspects until the statements were taken. The officers were entitled to cross-examine them if they felt this method would elicit the truth. The modus operandi forms were quoted to make it clear that the detectives had some knowledge of the offences and that it would be useless for the youths to tell lies. Detective McCracken was not involved in the taking of the statements. Detective Jackson was involved in three of them, said Mr Moller. Here again, he submitted, there was nothing improper in the methods used. Counsel submitted that the decision to drop the charges had been taken unwisely after woefully incomplete investigation and that there had been no opportunity for a Court to test the value of the youths’ alibis. Assault Allegations Mr R. K. Davison, counsel assisting the commission, referred to the assault allegations by Ruka and Harris. “The commission may well feel,” he said, “that the allegation against McCracken of assaulting Ruka has not been adequately made out. But Harris’s allegation against Jackson is somewhat different.” The two versions of the interview at Mangakino—Detective Jackson’s and Harris’s—dovetailed almost completely except for the allegation of assault, said Mr Davison. The commission might thjnk it significant that Harris would not agree to make a statement until he had been alone with Detective Jackson for a quarter of an hour. There was also Detective Jackson’s question next day as to how Harris was after what they had given to him. "What else could they have given him that would prompt such a question?” Mr Davison asked. Sir Vincent Meredith: Do you think a detective would be likely to refer to a hitting instance in front of Miss Lennon? Weighing against the assault allegation, Mr Davison added, were Detective Jackson’s denial and the fact that no complaint was made by Harris to any of the other officers. Mr Davison, referring to the third statement from Harris, said: "There is no doubt the method of dictating and merely gaining assent is not a proper method of taking a voluntary statement in conformity with Judges’ Rules.’’

He said that the commission might feel that more could have been done in the investigation of stolen property and the checking of fingerprints.