Further Evidence In Stanhill Inquiry

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30677, 17 February 1965, Page 14

Further Evidence In Stanhill Inquiry

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright)

MELBOURNE, February 16.

A company squad detective was asked in the city Court today if he had interviewed Sir William Bridgeford, Sir John McCauley and others concerning Stanhill Development Finance, Ltd.

Senior-Detective Arthur Marsh said he had not interviewed these men.

There was insufficient evidence on which to proceed against them, he said.

ijarsh and Senior-Detective ' Max Bruce were cross-exam-ined by Mr P. G. Saywell, counsel for lan Kenneth Redpath, for the purpose of allowing Mr W. Murray, S.M., to determine the admissability of certain evidence. Redpath, aged 39, of the Chevron Hotel, Potts Point, Sydney, a former Stanhill director, and three other men have been charged with making a reckless and misleading statement in the prospectus of July 15, 1960, under which Stanhill Development Finance, Ltd. was floated. The others are: Stanley Korman, aged 61, founder of the Stanhill group of com-

parties, of Toorak, John Clifford Carrodus, aged 45, of St. Kilda, former Stanhill company secretary and Norman William Strange, aged 72, chairman of Stanhill Development Finance, Ltd., of East Brighton. Marsh and Bruce were questioned about an interview with Redpath in Sydney on October 27 last when a questionaire was said to have been filled in. To further questions Marsh agreed the four defendants were signatories to the prospectus and Sir William Bridgeford was a signatory to the prospectus. Mr Saywell submitted Redpath was not properly cautioned before answering the questionaire. He did not suggest, he said, that police were improper in taking the approach they did, but they acted wrongly. Mr A. Nixon, for the Crown, submitted the caution given Redpath was within police regulations. He was

warned he need not answer questions. There was no duress at all and there was no evidence that the answers were obtained unfairly. Mr Murray said he would rule on the question of admissability of the evidence tomorrow.