Evidence on indecency charges against member of Parliament

Press, 28 July 1976, Page 3

Evidence on indecency charges against member of Parliament

The publication of alleged behaviour by John Gerald O'Brien, member of Parliament for Island Bay. in a Barbadoes Street motel on the night of June 14 was prohibited by Mr E. S. J. Crutchley, S.M.. in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday in the interests of justice and public morality.

O’Brien, aged 51, faced, two charges of indecent; assault upon a male when he appeared for; the taking of depositions. O'Brien has pleaded not guilty to both charges, which [arose from alleged incidents I involving two youths at a [Barbadoes Street motel on [the night of June 14. Counsel. .Mr K. N. Hampton. has elected trial by jury! on the accused’s behalf. Six of the prosecution’s 10 witnesses gave evidence yes-| terday. The hearing is ex-; pected to continue for much; of today . The Crown prosecutor is Mr N. W. Williamson. Also prohibited from pub-! lication were the contents of! three pornographic books said to have been shown to the youths. Both youths gave evidence yesterday. Suppression of name under the Children and Young Persons Act was automatic for the second complainant, as he is only 16. The youth of 17 who had

.made the initial complaint [against the accused was [granted interim suppression ‘ of name. He gave evidence that on June 14, he and the other youth had gone into town about 6 p.m., and after play- ■ ing pool in Tuam Street had 1 gone to a hamburger bar in : Cathedral Square between i 9.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. Later, he said, they had -met the accused in Gloucester [Street, near New Regent [Street. The younger youth [had asked the accused for '[2oc bus fare home. I The accused was alleged to [have given him $2 for “a 'ifeed,” and to have told them [his name was Gerry Smith. [They had arranged to meet (further along Gloucester ■ [Street after buying food, witiness said. [ It was witness’s birthday, and when they met the accused again after buying . fish and chips, this subject came up. ‘‘So he asked us if we wanted to go with him and have a few drinks,” witness said. He had noticed that the accused had a bottle of vodka in his coat pocket. All three had gone to the accused's motel room, where witness and the younger youth had a cup of tea befor joining accused in [drinking vodka and whisky. “He didn’t have much because he was so drunk,” witness said. Both youths had then “flaked out.” Witness said that when they awakened, the accused wanted one of them to go home and tel) their parents they would be home late. However, neither wanted to remain alone, “because he looked strong.”

The accused then teie- - phoned for a taxi and had i given them a bottle of champagne and SlO for the fare, i witness said. Witness said he had writi ten down the telephone num-1 . ber with a dead match on a I piece of paper from the i accused’s briefcase. This was i produced as an exhibit, and bore the House of Represen-[ [[tatives crest. .! The two youths had then i [gone to a friend’s house' nearby. When they returned ' to the motel room, the lights were out and the accused was asleep. Linder cross1 examination, witness later i said that one light was still i on. Witness awakened the . accused, who had said he was • glad they had returned. After finishing the bottle of whisky, both youths fell I . asleep on the couch, witness ( said. O’Brien had awakened '■ them and showed them three pornographic books. These , were produced in evidence. I Witness described the con- . tents of the books, and , alleged certain behaviour by i the accused subsequently. This was the behaviour later prohibited from publication. Witness said that after the events occurred, he had pushed the accused away and hit him in the eye, so that he fell to the floor. “He was looking wild, and I thought he was going to get up and give me a hiding, so I kicked him,” witness said. He had kicked the accused twice, although he could not remember where. The accused’s nose was bleeding, witness said. After hitting him again, witness grabbed a jacket from the bed and “walked out.” He said that he and the

other youth, whom he met outside, walked down to Ferry Road where he himself was arrested by the police for being drunk. At the police station that [morning he realised that he was wearing the accused’s jacket, which was the same colour as witness’s coat. Witness’s shirt and singlet [were missing, but he could [not remember losing them. [ In cross-examination. Mr [Hampton asked witness whether he had taken a cheque-book from the room. It could have been in the jacket he had taken by mistake, witness said. Mr Hampton: Did you also take an electric razor? —No. Did you take something like SSO in cash?—No. You went through his brieflcase and took a cheque-book didn’t you?—No. Mr Hampton asked witness why it had been necessary to hit the accused so often. “You could have got out of the room when you first hit him. couldn’t you?” he asked. Witness: No. You didn’t want him to get up and interfere with your idea of robbing him. did you? —No, why would I want to rob him? Mr Hampton later suggested that when witness woke up at the police station. he had realised he would be in trouble for having the jacket. “You had gone back with the idea of getting what else you could out of him, hadn’t you?” Mr Hampton said. The motel’s receptionist, a police photographer, a D.S.I.R. chemist, and a police surgeon had earlier given evidence. The receptionist, Diane Pavlinic, said that she had known the accused from previous encounters, and de-

scribed how they had joked on the evening of July 14. The accused had remarked how beautiful his wife was and how much he loved her. Witness also thought that the accused had been drinking. To Mr Hampton, witness said she could not remember whether accused had received any telephone calls that night." Asked if he had made any toll calls, she said he probably had. as he telephoned his” wife every night. The D.S.I.R. chemist. Peter Rudloph Hentschel!, said that he had performed analyses of blood samples from both complainants and the accused. He had also analysed blood spots on footwear belonging to the complainants. The blood was of the same type as the accused’s. The police surgeon, Dr K. J. O’Connor, said that he had examined the accused on the afternoon after the alleged incidents. He had suffered bruises and abrasions to much of the face, neck, and left ear, and to the white of both eyes. There were lacerations to the lower lip. The trunk and forelimbs were uninjured. There were bloodstains on the accused’s shirt, underpants. and the inside of his trousers. The accused had claimed a loss of memory about events that had occurred which could be accounted for by his injuries. Dr O’Connor said he had also made a physical examination of the complainant, aged 17. and found recent abrasions on the shoulders and chest, with fingermarks around the right nipple. A scheduled examination of the second youth had been cancelled after he had told wit-

Iness that he had not been) indecently assaulted. After Dr O’Connor’s evi-! dence, the youth aged 16 gave evidence. He said that while the j three were going up the J stairs to the accused’s mote) room, the accused had said: ‘■Be careful . . . this place is; being watched like a hawk."; Witness also described incidents that were said to have occurred in the room. ; Later, witness had seen the other youth "laying into” the I accused. Witness himself had! (gone out while they were still! fighting. Witness had been followed; by the other youth. They had; walked down to Ferry Road. j where they were found by the I police. In cross-examination, wit-j ness denied that he had also! kicked the accused. Mr Hampton: We have! been told that there was! blood on the toe of your shoe? Witness: Yes. I saw that at the police station that afternoon. Where did that blood come from?—His face ... or off the carpet. How did it come off his face on to your shoe?—Byl walking past. I must have' j rubbed some blood on to my; shoe. Witness denied having taken anything from he accused’s room. Mr Hampton asked why) witness had later changed his mind about being indecently assaulted. Witness said that detectives had “beaten the truth” out of him. In re-examination, Mr Williamson asked witness whether the police had actually hit or beaten him. Witness replied: “No.”