SUPREME COURT Woman found guilty on conspiracy charge

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32587, 22 April 1971, Page 15

SUPREME COURT Woman found guilty on conspiracy charge

Barbara Olive Knight, aged I 30, a housewife, was found I guilty by a jury in the; Supreme Court yesterday on| a charge of conspiring with: Colin George Amor to pervert the course of justice by I supplying to her solicitor a| false document relating to her health so that it could be used in submissions made on her behalf in the Magistrate’s Court. Mr Justice Wilson remanded Knight in custody to April 30 for sentence. Mr C. A. McVeigh appeared for the accused.; who pleaded not guilty to alternative charges of conspiring to pervert the course' of justice and of abetting Mr Amor to forge a letter dated, October 15, 1969, referring to; her health and purporting to| be written and signed by “Dr C. J. Hunt” i Mr N. W. Williamson! appeared for the Crown, which called six witnesses, i The jury took an hour and; a half to reach its verdict. I STOREMAN’S EVIDENCE Colin George Amor, a; storeman, said that he had been charged with an offence in connection with the matter. He had first met the accused in 1966 when he gave her driving lessons. He met her again by chance in Cathedral Square in 1968. She told him that she was not well and' had cancer of the spine. A few days later, after the! accused telephoned him, he went to her home. She told' him that he was the only! person who could help her.i that she had a blood condition, and that her husband would not believe her. She asked witness to tell her husband that he was a doctor. Mr Amor said that he spoke to the accused's

ll husband on the telephone, I 1 and later personally, and told i|him what the accused had tasked witness to say. il One evening in October. • 11969, the accused asked him ’'to write a certificate regard-; ring her health. She told him' •Ithat she was in trouble about i the theft of money. He wrote i the certificate at her home, i The accused’s husband was not in the room at the time. • Witness addressed the letter! > to Mr D. M. Palmer because | accused told witness that Mr 11 Palmer was acting for her. .' On the accused’s sugges>tion, he telephoned Mr •j Palmer and told him of the certificate. He called himself • “Dr Hupt” when speaking to 11 Mr Palmer, Mr Amor said. 1 DETECTIVE’S EVIDENCE 'I Detective Senior-Sergeant 'N. J. Stokes, of Auckland, •said that he spoke to the ac--1 cused on September 12, 1969,1 •at an address in Herdman i Street. He told her that she I;had told a detective that she: [was suffering from an illness,; and that the witness was 'there to ascertain the true (nature of it. , The accused replied that she was suffering from cancer ; of the spine and that she was , visiting Christchurch Hospital . several times a week for treatment. A Dr Blair at the hospital had advised her that ' she should have died three ' months before and that at the most she had three' ','months to live. •[ On September 16, witness] ' returned to the same address! and spoke to the accused in the presence of her husband. ;He told her that the ChristI church Hospital had no record of her being treated for ' cancer or any other illness, that there was no Dr Blair on the staff of the hospital : and that he could not find a Dr Blair in Christchurch.

. The accused had said that 1 the hospital must have a re--1 cord of her because she was going there several times a .'week. There had to be a i Dr Blair because he had been treating her for some time t and knew her well. She t could not understand it. :i “After some further conversation with the accused, I s j told her that I did not believe . her and that I would be re--i commending that she be ■ charged with theft. I went •Ito leave the house, and she followed me into the hallw’ay, • and asked me if she could r speak to me on my own with- > out her husband being pref sent,” said witness. ’ ILLNESS MAINTAINED “We walked into another room. The accused opened • the conversation by saying ■ that I was right, that she was ■ not receiving treatment for ■ cancer at the hospital, and 1 that she did not know a Dr ■ Blair. She said that her hus- - band thought that she had ■ cancer and that she was re- • ceiving treatment for it, and ' she did not want to say in front of him that this ’• was not the case. “I asked her if she meant I by this that she did not have ! cancer but she still main- , tained that she did have it,” ' said Detective Senior-Ser- ; geant Stokes. David Maxwell Palmer, a I solicitor practising in Christchurch, said that in October, 1969, he had represented the /accused when she pleaded , guilty in the Magistrate’s Court to a charge of stealI ing a cheque for $54. He identified a certificate ■ produced in court and , addressed to him as one • which was handed to him as I he was going into court to i deal with the case the accused was involved in. He

thought, that it was handed to him by the accused. During the course of his submissions, he presented the certificate to Mr E. S. J. Crutchley, S.M. The accused was ordered to come up for sentence within two years, if called upon, Mr Palmer said.