Indecency charges against M.P. thrown out by Magistrate

Press, 29 July 1976, Page 1

Indecency charges against M.P. thrown out by Magistrate

Both charges of indecent assault upon a male brought igainst John Gerald O'Brien, were dismissed by Mr E. S. J. Crutchley, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday.

The charges arose from an alleged incident where two youths were present in a Barbadoes Street motel on June 15.

The Magistrate was absent for more than an hour to consider his judgment.

There was applause in the courtroom when he discharged Mr O’Brien, who a-peared moved. When delivering judgment Mr Crutchley said that the evidence was insufficient to justify committing O’Brien to trial. “The court has no hesitation in finding both complainants unreliable in their evidence, and lacking credibility to such an extent as to fall short of establishing the allegations,” he said. It was not for him to comment on suggestions by O’Brien’s counsel (Mr K. N. Hampton) concerning the youths. He added that the proof of background circumstances, however relevant, did not prove the central issue.

He ordered final suppression of the name of the older youth who was not covered by the Children’s and Young Persons’ Act, and again prohibited publication of alleged acts that occurred in the motel room.

Mr Hampton made detailed submissions to the court that, a prima facie case could not be established in either of the charges. He called no evidence in favour of the defence.

When concluding submissions he had said that all the evidence was consistent with a planned robbery’. The built-in excuse if the youths were apprehended, was the counterallegation that they had been molested.

During his submissions he had said the two complainants had given completely differing evidence as to what had occurred in the room.

He described as “convenient,” parts of the first complainant’s evidence and cited the “sudden and startling recollection after prodding by the Crown Prosecutor,” of the alleged events in the room. “There was also the evidence of the taxi-driver as to the complainants’ relatively sober state in the taxi.”

Another anomaly was the conflict between one part and another of the first complainant’s evidence.

Mr Hampton said that the manner and demeanour of the youths while testifying was questionable. “Despite their youth in terms of years, it is clear that they’ are not innocents, but hardened and experienced.” He added that evidence from other prosecution witnesses as to what the complainants had told them differed from the evidence actually given in court by the youths. There were improbabilities contained in the stories of both youths, he said. Both had said that O’Brien wanted them to go home and tell their parents where they were. That didn’t seem compatible with an alleged desire to molest them.

Why had they gone back to the’ motel when they had said O’Brien wasn’t a man they wanted to stay with? Mr Hampton contended that the youths had originally intended to go home. They had given the taxidriver one of their home addresses.

He believed that the youths had changed their minds and gone back because O’Brien was “an easy mark.”

It was also inconceivable that the second youth should have sat by and watched allegedly offensive acts occurring to his good friend. There was no corroboration by the first youth that the second had been indecently assaulted at all, he said. With relation to the re-

moval of O’Brien’s jacket, Mr Hampton said that the only inference that could be drawn was that the youths had taken the missing razor and chequebook as well.

He said that when the first complainant woke up in the police station he knew he would have to explain where the jacket came from. Another factor to be considered was why O’Brien had been given such a severe beating if all that the youth wanted to do was to get out of the room.

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr N. W. Williamson), said that Mr Hampton had omitted certain matters such as finding the elder youth’s clothes in the motel, the presence of indecent material, and the empty liquor bottles described by the complainants.

Detective Sergeant D. K. White of the Christchurch C. 1.8. earlier gave evidence that he had gone to O’Brien’s motel at 10.15 in the morning. The accused was dressed only in underpants. There were bloodstains on a sheet on one of the beds in the room, he said. Sergeant White said that while the accused was getting dressed he opened the wardrobe door and then “hurriedly” shut it. At the back of the wardrobe was a shirt and other items of clothing belonging to the first complainant. O’Brien could not give an explanation for the clothes, witness said. In the centre of the room were large damp patches. O’Brien told him that he had attempted to wipe up blood. There were also bloodstains on the walls. There were papers scattered over the couch and floor on one side of the room, he said. O’Brien had attempted to cover three magazines also on the couch with some of the papers. Witness picked them up and accused said: “I shouldn’t have these.” Sgt White said he took a satchel from the room to the police station: he found several other magazines, some photograohs, and another item inside the satchel. After a submission by Mr Hampton the magistrate prohibited publication of any description of all these items. Sgt White, continuing his evidence, said that O’Brien noticed while he was getting dressed that his cheque book and electric razor were missing.

Questioned by Mr Hamp- ' otn Sgt White said that all but eight or nine of the missing cheques were recovered at a hotel in Barbadoes Street. One had been cashed that morning. Witness denied that O’Brien told him some cash was also missing. Detective Senior Sergeant A. G. I. Rodgers said that he had accompanied

Sergeant White and O’Brien back to the motel in the afternoon. He saw accused attempt to place scattered papers over three magazines. After returning to the police station he called a doctor to examine both youths and the accused. Shortly after 1.00 p.m., he described to the accused the nature of the allegations. O’Brien replied that he would like to help but that he couldn’t remember, witness said.

Witness asked whether he could recall any events from the evening. The accused replied in a “forcible manner” that he didn’t know what had happened but that he “would deny it.”

O’Brien said that he didn’t suppose there was any point in saying anything — “it was just bloody crazy.”

Witness told O’Brien that the police possessed certain literature and asked accused to comment on this.

“He was pacing around and looking out of the window,” Senior Sergeant Rodgers said. Accused replied that he could not deny the matters raised because he could not remember. He said: “It’s not my character. It’s my character to talk to them, but that’s all,” witness testified.

Witness said O’Brien told him that the last thing he could remember that evening was watching the television news and making a telephone call. He said: “It would be glib for me to say the obvious things to these allegations.” Witness said he had asked accused to explain.

O’Brien replied that it was “almost as if it had been planned.” When he was asked why, he said that he would not answer that.

About 2 p.m. a solicitor, Mr R. A. Young, arrived, witness said.

During this visit the accused said: “You know, the worst thing about all this is that my wife will know I have been drinking.” At 3.30 p.m. O’Brien was charged with indecent assault on the first complainant.

During cross-examina-tion by Mr Hampton, witness said he believed that it was as a result of an

examination of accused by another doctor that accused had been admitted to hospital. He conceded that no charges had been laid against the first complainant on matters relating to the incident.

The first witness called by the prosecution yesterday was a taxi-driver who said he drove the youths to and from the motel.

Answering Mr Hampton, he said he didn’t think that either was excessively drunk; they were capable of discussing things rationally.

the police constable who arrested the youth, aged 17. on Ferry Road early in the morning, also testified. Constable W. H. Warren said that he had seen one youth supporting another; he stopped and questioned them.

The older complainant was arrested for being drunk and was taken to the police station. Constable Warren said to Mr Hampton that he did not search the other youth. The arrested youth was naked from the waist up except for a suit coat “which appeared rather too large for him.” When he was searched a set of keys, House of Representatives notepaper, and a card bearing the accused’s name were found.