SUPREME COURT $199 In Costs Awarded Against Police

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31772, 31 August 1968, Page 17

SUPREME COURT $199 In Costs Awarded Against Police

Murray Edward Forgie, aged 37, a radio announcer (Mr J. G. Leggat), was awarded $199.27 in costs and disbursements by Mr Justice Macarthur in the Supreme Court yesterday.

He was awarded $lOO costs in respect of preparing the case for his appeal to the Supreme Court against a conviction on an indecency charge in the Magistrate’s Court. He was also awarded $99.27 for the expense of bringing a witness from the North Island to give evidence at the appeal. The result of the appeal was an order for a rehearing. At the rehearing in the Magistrate's Court Mr Forgie was discharged. Yesterday’s application was brought under the new Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1967, which came into force on April 1 this year.

His Honour declined to make any award in respect of the initial Magistrate's Court bearing. He said he did not accept Mr Leggat’s one point of criticism—that the police should have carried out some form of check of the complainant’s bona tides before issuing the information.

His Honour said the police had acted properly on a complaint from a person they had no reason to distrust It seemed dear that Mr Forgie's loss of salary and similar things could not be allowed under the heading of costs, but his expenses in bringing the North Island witness to Christchurch for the appeal could be allowed. In his submissions, Mr Leggat said he was not in a position to allege any lack of good faith on the part of the prosecuting officer or his superiors. Nor had he any criticism to make of the police investigation on the night of the alleged offence, but he submitted some effort should have been made to verify the complainant’s story.

Even after the first lower court hearing, a check should have been made, because it transpired in cross-examina-tion that the complainant—who claimed to be a Tahitian who had been in New Zealand only three months—had attended a North Island secondary school for some years. Mr Leggat said the hearing was a protracted one, which was attended by a great deal of unpleasant and unfavourable publicity. He said Mr Forgie had lost pay through being given a lowar grade of work between July 18 and August 8. He was reinstated forthwith after the rehearing. Mr N. W. Williamson, appearing for the Crown, submitted that no order for costs should be made. If costs were

allowed, they should not be on the basis of any criticism of police procedure or . prosecution.

His Honour said he was tentatively with Mr Williamson on that point. He recalled that one of the officers had taken some care in his decision as to whether or not he would recommend laying the charge. Mr Williamson said the police had acted on a complaint from one whom they had no cause to mistrust or disbelieve. Initially they also had evidence from the person to whom an immediate complaint had been made. In these circumstances, he said, there would be no duty on the police to investigate the personal circumstances of a complainant. After hearing long crossexamination, the Magistrate had accepted the truthfulness of the complainant, so the police were not alerted to any duty to make further inquiries. After the appeal said Mr Williamson, the police made some inquiries and informed Mr Leggat of the facta. Mr Leggat said he was not asking for costs on the basis of any criticism. He said that at the end of the first hearing it transpired that the complainant's original evidence could not have been wholly correct “And that’s treating him generously,” he added.

He said that at least on the matters capable of ready confirmation there was time for inquiries to be made. The defence had made these inquiries. APPEAL SUCCEEDS

His Honour reduced to three months a sentence of six months imprisonment imposed on Wilfred James Edrick Juggernaut aged 31, a workman, in the Magistrate's Court at Dunedin on July 15. The imprisonment is to be followed by probation for one year. Juggernaut (Mr A. F. Wilding) had appealed against" the sentence, imposed after conviction on a charge of forgery. His Honour said the Magistrate’s sentence was not inappropriate or excessive, but that he felt he was justified in varying it because of the state of health and medical history of the appellant’s wife. DISMISSED Appeals by Edward Winiata, aged 33, a shearer (Mr R .F. B. Perry), against convictions for burglary and unlawfully getting into a car at Geraldine on June 28 were dismissed. His Honour said the Magistrate had come to a completely justifiable and correct conclusion that the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt.