Dismissal ‘justified’

Press, 7 August 1976, Page 2

Dismissal ‘justified’

PA Wellington! The decision to dismiss an' officer of the Security Intelligence Service suspected; of giving police job sheets lheld on an S.I.S. file to an Auckland businessman was justified, the Chief Ombuds- ' man (Sir Guy Powies) said in his report on the S.I.S. Last July and August a great deal of publicity had :been given to the fact that [ copies of portions of two i police job sheets which reported interviews with a Labour member of Parliament. Mr J. G. O’Brien (Island Bay), had found their wav into the hands of an Auckland businessman, Mr Paul Freeman. After some [delay Mr Freeman had taken I these documents to the then Prime Minister (Mr Row-; (ling) Inquiries were made by! I the police, and by the ser-l I vice, and an officer of the' 5.1.5., Mr Rohan Jays, was 'asked to resign. Sir Guy said his inquiries I confirmed the existence of a ibody of evidence which; [strongly suggested that Mr[Jays sent the job sheets to; [Mr Freeman. “The evidence was of such: I a nature as to justify the; decision taken by the 1

11 director of the service to in-1 (vite Mr Jays to resign. “Indeed, I believe-that the ■ director had no choice but ijto take the action he did. He .'could not afford to keep on ' his staff an officer against 1 whom there was strong evit dence that he had sent the - service documents to a I member of the public.” On the other hand, Sir Guy said, his inquiries had 1 shown him that the evidence I against Mr Jays was all of a t circumstantial nature. ,1 “Mr Jays himself had con[sistently denied to the service, and later consistently ‘ denied to me, that he was ■ (responsible for the leak. He ■.gave every appearance of ■ being sincere in his protestai tions of innocence and of re- ■ taining a loyalty to the ser- > vice which he had faithfully; i served over a good number i of years. i “It is far from easy, more- j [over, to produce a convincing '’explanation as to the motive I which Mr Jays might have; i'had in sending the docu-; ; ments to Mr Freeman. I con-i isidered the possibility that; i somebody else in the service i[was responsible for the leak, Hand deliberately left a trail [of evidence to implicate Mr i [Jays. I “There is no evidence to ij substantiate this. Mr Jays ! [himself said to me that he I J believed that none of his!

I colleagues in the service 'would have any reason to do 'this,”