ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Ruling Given Bv S.M. (N.Z. Pres* Association) TAURANGA, January 4. ’’lf an arrested person declines to make a statement to the police, any subaequent verbal explanation made bv him cannot be used in evidence,” Mr G. J. Donne. S.M , ruled in the Magistrate'* Court today. Before the Court was Barry Ralph Dibble, aged 22, of Auckland, who pleaded not guilty to a charge of the theft of 10 glasses from the Anchor Inn, Mt. Maunganui. The charge against Dibble, who was represented by Mr R. A. Adams-Smith, was dismissed. Mr Adams-Smith sought a ruling early in the hearing when a constable said Dibble had not made a statement, but had offered an explanation later. The Magistrate ruled that the explanation, together with any admissions or denials, was not admissable as evidence. Jack Cecil Krushka. manager of the Anchor Inn. could not identify the glasses a* being his, although they were the same as were used in the hotel. He agreed with counsel that they were widely used in hotels throughout New Zealand.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19620105.2.199
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume CI, Issue 29713, 5 January 1962, Page 14
Word Count
175ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE Press, Volume CI, Issue 29713, 5 January 1962, Page 14
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.