JUDGE’S FINDING: Constable kicked demonstrator

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33775, 22 February 1975, Page 3

JUDGE’S FINDING: Constable kicked demonstrator

(New Zealand Press Association)

TIMARU, February 21.

A Supreme Court judge has found that a Christchurch youth involved in the 1972 Mount John demonstrations was kicked in the face by a Christchurch police constable.

But Mr Justice Roper, after hearing evidence in the Supreme Court at Timaru last November, has also ruled that no damages can be allowed because of a little-known provision of the Police Act, 1968.

That provision says all ac- • tions against any person !must be begun within (one year of an incident, and I notice in writing of every such legal action must be given to the defendant at least one month before the action begins. His Honour, in a reserved judgment, ruled that the action was brought too late by Derek Raymond Bunn, who was a seventh-form pupil when the demonstrations occurred. Aside from that statutory limitation, his Honour said, an award of §lOOO would have compensated the plaintiff adequately for his i injuries from the kicking in-j cident. The plaintiff claimed; $7515 damages against the Attorney-General. “I can see no reason why: 1 at that time it was thought;

■(necessary to dispatch the li group on the knoll with i such haste and by such i 1 means that injury resulted,” his Honour said. “One wonrdershow much that incident t'influenced later events at ! Mount John.” 1 Jaw broken ■ The plaintiff's jaw was ' I broken and teeth knocked ’(out in the incident, injuries ■which defence counsel —; ■ Messrs M. C. and T. M. (Gresson, of Timaru — said could have been caused by a, • fall on the rocks instead of I ! a kick. “I On the night of March ll,j ! 11972, plaintiff was one of a (number of people who climbed to a knoll within] Jj 100 yards of the observaJ ’ tory, which was surrounded! by a police cordon. '] Two officers approached’ ■] the group, one of them al (Christchurch dog-handler! I Constable R. D. Cummings. He was ordered to disperse, (the group. |i In his testimony, plaintiff |i said his last memory was of (’ the dog handler running to-|l wards him. He remembered I i seeing legs near his face andii nothing more. He regained |l partial consciousness someji I time later in the observatory! (building. (1 Witnesses , Two witnesses said they ’ , saw the constable kick out i with his foot and hit the i first person he reached. t

I His Honour said both witnesses were credible. He noted that medical evidence indicated "the absence of ex-] temal lacerations made a fall on rock unlikely" as a cause of the facial injuries. "I am satisfied the plaintiff was kicked.” he' added. "\X hilt* dazed* "The plaintiff may have fallen, just as a number of other people may well have fallen as they left the scene in haste." he said. "But if he did 1 am satisfied it was after he had suffered the initial kick and. while dazed,' was trying to make his way (from the scene.” I His Honour said the police testimony that the plaintiffsaid he fell was not incon-1 sistent with the possibility] (that he could have fallen at some time after the kick.