SUPREME COURT Accused Gives Evidence In Forgery Trial

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32031, 4 July 1969, Page 8

SUPREME COURT Accused Gives Evidence In Forgery Trial

Giving evidence in his own defence in the Supreme Court yesterday on 27 charges of forgery, Clifford Jack Fordham, aged 45, a Social Security Department officer, denied that he had forged Social Security Department benefits and associated documents, and said that somebody else in the department must have been responsible. In opening the defence, counsel for Fordham, Mr R. S. D. Twyneham, suggested to the jury that there was somebody in the Social Security Department who, after the accused’s arrest, had taken steps to intimidate him further. Counsel will address the jury, and Mr Justice Wilson sum up the case this morning, evidence having been completed yesterday. The accused—who has pleaded not guilty on all 27 counts—was; in the witness-box for three parts of yesterday’s sitting, and was cross-examined for almost two hours and a half. “Not a Red Herring”

The accused, in his evidence, gave the jury an account—“not a red herring," Mr Twyneham said—of how five days after being arrested and charged in the Magistrate’s Court, where bis name was suppressed, a man had come to accused’s house and taxed him with having shown “slightly indecent photographs” to his daughter.

The accused said that this man had come to accused’s house at 267 Fifield Terrace, St Martins, after first approaching accused's neighbour, inquiring for a “Mr Fordyce” or “Mr Forsyth.”

The man had taxed accused with having picked up his daughter from her home. and taken her to accused’s own home, where he had discussed employment prospects with her, given her tea and biscuits, and shown her the pictures. Fordham said that some days previously he had been instrumental in obtaining for this girl—said to be mentally retarded, and whose name his Honour ordered suppressed an unemployment benefit at the Social Security Department. Fordham said he invited the girl’s father to bring her to his home to repeat “these extraordinary allegations," but this was never done. ■ He had never been to the girl’s home, said Fordham, nor she to his. In any event, said Mr Twyneham to the jury, Fordham had “a good alibi” for the day of this girl’s alleged visit. “But I suggest there must have been someone in the Social Security Depart-1 ment who wanted to intimidate my client further,” Mr Twyneham said.

Cross-examination

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr N. W. Williamson) asked the accused, on cross-examina-tion, what was the relevance' of the girl’s allegation and her father’s visit.

The accused said: “I don’t know. It is quite a mystery to me.”

The accused had previously given evidence that he had not seen the girl when she applied for an unemployed benefit, only dealt with forms.

The accused agreed that he had heard, from his solicitor, that the police had inquired into the man’s allegation against accused, and were satisfied that no offence had occurred. Under further cross-exami-nation, the accused agreed that his position of deserted wives’ officer in the Social Security Department was "somewhat unique” in that he was the sole officer in the section, was frequently out of the office, had greater opportunity to take out files and papers, had a comparatively small number of beneficiaries to deal with, and the chance to get to know them and their personalities. "Manipulation of System” Mr Williamson: No-one outside the Social Security Department could have forged these documents, and manipulated the system? Accused: The system would be peculiar to the office, I agree. Mr Williamson: If she hadn’t seen you, she would hardly know your name and address? But you would know hers? Accused: Yes.

If her parents had falsely been put on to you, they would hardly have gone to your next-door neighbour inquiring for a man with a name slightly different from yours?— That hardly seems likely. The accused was pressed for some time by Mr William, son on the topic that he (accused) was the only sterson in the Social Security Department who "measured up” to all the requirements the forger would have had to meet. The accused said: “Listen-

ing to the evidence, it has become apparent that these forgeries have been undertaken by someone with very much more skill and audacity than I possess.”

Challenged about the positive identification of his handwriting on forged documents, the accused said that it appeared somebody in the Social Security Department had forged the signatures in handwriting similar to his own.

Questioning accused about the forged signature of Mr J. P. Gordon on the renewal form for a benefit, Mr Williamson said: “Not only that, but that person forged someone else’s signature and kept the characteristics of your handwriting in the forgery? In other words, a double forgery?” Accused: 1 do not understand the detailed principle behind this, but that appears to be the case. Clerk’s Description Mr Williamson suggested that a description given by Miss C. E. Jeffries, a Sydenham Post Office clerk, of a man who had called there to uplift an order book, transferred from Upper Riccarton, in the name of Hardman—“aged about 40, dark hair, medium build”—would, in general, fit the accused. The accused said he did not agree. “She described me as being of medium build. With a weight of 9st 71b, I would describe myself as of slight build.”

Dr J. Ballin also gave brief evidence for the defence, saying that the accused had consulted him on June 6, wanting to have a truth test done under drugs, “on the idea that anyone who was guilty would not so submit himself,” Dr Ballin said. Witness said that he had declined the accused’s request, knowing that evidence about a truth-drug test would be inadmissible in Court.

Questioned by his Honour, Dr Ballin agreed that the accused had not consulted him about any psychiatric disease or abnormality.

Handwriting Expert The Crown’s last witness, Detective Sergeant J. A. West, under cross-examina-tion yesterday morning agreed that he had been unable to identify all questioned writing in the case as having been written by the accused. Asked if be had asked for specimens of handwriting from other members of the Social Security Department staff, witness said he had obtained specimens from Messrs E. B. Pyne and J. P. Gordon, in relation to their signatures.

Mr Twyneham: Did you ask any member of the staff at random to write the signature “J. G. Stewart”?

Witness: No, sir. I did not. I was in Wellington. Could you not have obtained random samples of such handwriting very readily?—This could have been done.

Why didn’t you?—No particular reason, sir. Asked about the circumstances under which specimens of the accused’s handwriting had been obtained. Detective Sergeant West said that some had been taken during the course of the accused’s work and some at the request of Detective Bimpson. Mr Twyneham: Is there any attempt to disguise his handwriting in the specimens? The witness said it was sometimes difficult to tell what was disguise and what was "the strain of the moment” when asked to give a handwriting specimen. “Everyone is nervous of being interviewed by a detective,” witness said. “Innocent people display nervousness in handwriting.” Mr Twyneham: Do you really say that? That every

person is nervous when interviewed by a detective?—This is a generalisation. Do you seriously suggest that my learned friend, the Crown Prosecutor, would be nervous when interviewed by a detective?—lf he were under suspicion I suggest he might be.

“Do you say that if my learned friend were being interviewed in a routine matter he would be nervous?” asked Mr Twyneham. “We don’t usually take handwriting specimens in routine matters,” witness said. “There is always some significance for it.”