Supreme Court YOUNG MAN GUILTY OF CHARGE OF BURGLARY

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29130, 16 February 1960, Page 8

Supreme Court YOUNG MAN GUILTY OF CHARGE OF BURGLARY

A jury in the Supreme Court yesterday found Walter Clifford Te Koeti, aged 25, a labourer, guilty of burglary. He was remanded for sentence by Mr Justice Macarthur. Te Koeti was charged with breaking and entering by night a house at 38 Tonbridge street on November 6 with intent to commit a crime, and, alternatively, with being unlawfully in the premises of 38 Tonbridge street with intent to commit a crime. The jury, after retiring for 40 minutes found Te Koeti guilty on the first count. Outlining the Crown's case, Mr C. M, Roper said that the accused had made a statement to the police that he had seen a young girl occasionally in front of her house. He had followed her home, and entered the house after all the lights were out with the intention of indecently assaulting the girl. The accused had actually touched the girl, then taken fright and run away. The accused had been seen some 10 minutes later and had told a detective he was visiting his girl friend who lived at Barnes road, PapaptjL When the detective later found? out that Barnes road was in Belfast he asked a patrol pat to search for the accused again. The accused had been picked up and had made a statement. Rae Yvonne McKenzie, aged 18. an apprentice hairdresser, I Sid she slept in a bedroom at e front of the house facing the street. Her sister, aged 11, slept in the same bedroom. Her mother and father slept in a bedroom opposite hers, and her brother slept in a bedroom at the back of the house. On Friday evening, November 8, she was in town and caught a bus home about 9.30 p.m. She walked from the bus stop near the Carlton Mill bridge to her home by herself. She walked down the path, opened the back door and went ifistde. She went back to make sure the door was closed, but did npt lock it as she was nbt sure her brother was homp. Heard Heavy Breathing She got into bed 15 minutes later after turning out all the lights. About 11 p.m., when she was just dozing, she heard heavy breathing. “When I turned round to see what it was, there was absolute silence. A few minutes later I felt a touch on my back and the bed wobbled,” witnes; said. “I made an attempt to reach the light. I saw something dark beside my bed. The person ran from the room. I screamed. He made a terrific noise going out the back, seeming to bang into every wall.” The witness said she had never seen the accused before. To Mr J. G. Leggat. who appeared for the defence, the witness said she did not know who was in the house that night. Esme Frances McKenzie, mother of the previous witness, said all the rest of the family were in bed when she heard her daughter comp home. “Next thing we were woken by Rae calling, 'Mum, quick!’ We thought Rae’s sister might have been sick. She had not been well. I went to Rae’s room-. She was very upset,” witness said. “I went to the front door. I saw a man running towards Andover street from our neighbour s property. There is a gate between our properties. “The man had on a dark suit 'and he was running in a crouched manner.” Witness said she telephoned for the police, and a detective arrived three minutes later. Sergeant Selwyn Wilford Byers said about 11.45 p.m. he saw the accused in Papanui road near Merivale lane. The accused accompanied him to the police station in a patrol car. Detective-Constable Stanley James Main said that at 11 P-m--he went to the bouse in Tonbridge street in a patrol car. Accompanied by Mr McKenzie, he went down Andover street into Rossall street. He saw the accused, who appeared to be walking along in a crouching position by a hedge. The accused told the detective he lived in Lyttelton, that he had been to the pictures and was going to see his girl friend who lived jn Barnes road, Papanui. Police Interview At 12.20 a.m., Detective Main continued, he interviewed the accused in the C. 1.8. office. After first denying he was the intruder in the McKenzie hbtise, the accused had said he would tejl about it but did not wish to makg a written statement.

The detective said accused had told him he had seen Miss McKenzie in the Square and boarded the same bus as her. He knew where she lived because he had seen her several times in the front yard of her home. “The accused said he waited till the light? went out, then entered the back door. He crept into the girl’s bedroom and knelt by her bed. He touched her on the back. When she woke, accused told me he rushed out of the house,” the witness said. Detective Main said that the accused had told him that he had intended to touch the girl indecently, but when she woke he became frightened. Cross-examined by Mr Leggat, Detective Main said he had not known Te Koeti before November 6. He would say now that the accused was sub-normal. He had a foot noticeably turned out which made him appear partly crippled and seemed to walk with a hobble. After 20 minutes of interviewing in the police station the accused had said he wished to tell the story but he did not wish to make a statement. Mr Leggat: I ask you, as the investigating officer, do you think it was fair to continue to examine this retardate person when he had said he did not wish to make a statement? Detective Main: I think it was very fair. Case for Defence Opening the defence, Mr Leggat submitted the jury could not act safely on the statement made by the accused. This was the only real evidence against accused,-but the jury could place no weight in it, certainly not enough to convict a criminal charge, having regard to the mentality of the accused and the circumstances under which the statement was made. Alexander Bertram Allan, a psychologist attached to the Education Department, said he appeared on subpoena as a defence witness. He claimed privilege, on the instructions of his department. His Honour said the witness’s evidence might be of value to either the defence or the Crown and he was unable to rule that witness was privileged. Allan said that in June, 1954, he saw the accused on the request of the accused’s doctor. The accused was then 20 and functioned mentally at the standard II or 111 level. Accused had then been two years at the Otekaike Special School after going to primary school. Cross-examined by Mr Roper, Allan said he had not examined or seen the accused since. 1954. It was likely that the accused, now 25, had developed in his knowledge of sex but witness would not be definite on that assumption. The defence maintained that Dectective Main should not, in his own judgment and in the discharge of his police duties, have allowed the accused to proceed with his story, much less question him, after the accused had said he did not wish to make a statement, Mr Leggat told the jury. “The evidence of Detective Main can be read out slowly in 2i minutes. But this retarded young man, with a mental age °f eight or 10 years, was dominated for 75 minutes. He was badgered and pressed by three police officers for 20 minutes before he even said he would tell his story. Do yqu think this was a reasonable, honest statement the police obtained from this boy? “Or do you think this statement, in. the circumstances in which It was made, is something far too dangerous on which to convict any person?” asked Mr Leggat. “The defence submits that the statement should never have been taken from the accused at all,” Mr Leggat concluded. The only question at issue in the case was whether it was the accused who broke Into the McKenzie’s house, Mr Roper told the jury. The accused had said in his statement to Detective Main that it was he who entered the house and touched the girl. "The defence has tried to paint a picture of a half-witted boy. He is in fact 25. The defence has tried to make something sinister of the interview with the accused, but has brought no evidence to support such suggestions. I ask you to disregard it,” the prosecutor concluded.

Children stand more in need of example than criticism.—Joseph Joubert.