Damages against police

Press, Issue 33842, 14 May 1975, Page 3

Damages against police

'.V Z. Press As sue tat ton) AUCKLAND, May 13. , Barry John Moriarty aged 18, was awarded compensatory damages totalling §739 and costs by Mr Justice Speight today for having his jaw fractured by a constable interviewing him. The plaintiff, a workman, of Mount Roskill, had claimed $6OOO in the Supreme Court at Auckland for an assault which he said occurred in the Otahuhu police station in August, 1973. Counsel for the defendants, the Attorney-General sued in respect of the Police Department (first defendant) and Constable Dennis Gordon Scott Smith (second defendant), said outside the court that it was too early to say whether an appeal would be lodged.

His Honour said that the plaintiff did not suffer trivial injuries. His teeth were loosened and his jaw frac-

lured, requiring it to be wired up for seven weeks. He had lost weight, and could eat only food processed in a vitamiser. “But I cannot overlook the clear evidence that he cannot have been so inconvenienced as his counsel claimed, because during that period (the seven weeks) he committed robbery with violence,’’ said his Honour.

There was a sharp conflict of evidence, and only the plaintiff and the constable knew what took place. There were some discrepancies between plaintiff’s evidence in this hearing and on previous occasions.

The plaintiff was an “unattractive youth” who had a substantial list of previous offences at the time of the the incident. He was apprehended driving a converted motor-vehicle on August 11, and was cheeky to the constable on the way to the police station.

The plaintiff had claimed that he was struck without having given cause. The blow knocked him back against

the wall of the room he was being interviewed in. The constable had said that there were no hard words or animosity between them in the room, but spoke of the plaintiff’s cheeky behaviour. Constable Smith had said that the plaintiff struck him on the shoulder, and he struck back in self-defence.

“CHEEKY LARRIKIN” “I must confess I find this most unlikely,” said his Honour. The plaintiff was a “cheeky larrikin,” with convictions for. among other things, burglary and dishonesty. But he was small, and as a 17-year-old in a police station, his experience would advise him that other policemen were about.

“I realise his meek manner in the witness-box would not always be, characteristic of him,” said his Honour.

He thought the plaintiff was continuing to behave in an arrogant manner which was trying the patience of “this hard-working policeman.’’

Finding against the likeli-

hood that the plaintiff had hit the constable, his Honour' said: “Anti-social he may be, but stupid 1 do not think." Even if the plaintiff had hit the constable, it was not a blow of any severity. The constable had given evidence that it did not knock him off balance or injure him. His Honour said he thought that Constable Smith had intended to give the plaintiff a “clip over rhe ear,” but had hit him harder than he intended. He awarded $5OO general damages, special damages of $lB4 to the Auckland Hospital Board for his treatment, and $55 for equipment purchased.

Spray ban sought.—The Government should immediately ban the sale of aerosol, sprays containing freon gas,; said the leader of the Values Party (Mr R. C. Clough) yesterday. Continual release of the gas into the atmosphere; was breaking down the layer which protected the earth from solar radiation, he said.j —(P.A.) I