Police methods probed

Press, 5 July 1977, Page 6

Police methods probed

by GARRY ARTHUR Every now and then the' television journalists come up with a cracker. Last night’s! ‘ Dateline Monday” on TV!( was one. It looked into the! subject of police credibility! — the truth or otherwise of J police evidence in criminal I proceedings, the objectivity: and fairness of the police in! investigating crime and com- 1 piling a case against a sus-; pect.

It was a courageous programme, and one that was badly needed. Reporters covering police activities have to deal with the police on a daily basis, and it takes a solid bit of digging and substantial backing-up to produce a story unfavourable to the police which will stand public scrutiny without shutting the reporter concerned off from his source of information for evermore. No-one who watched last evening’s programme can fail to have been impressed with the way in which TVI presented its case on police malpractice. It was not just reporters telling what someone else had told them — it was criminal lawyers, policemen and judges facing the camera and saying what they knew.

Peter Williams, a defence lawyer, accused the police of sanctioning changes to “verbal’ admissions in order to produce a “colour of guilt.” This kind of falsification of unrecorded “admissions" which are used in court

against accused persons, was widespread, said one lawyer. 'Some policemen were prepared to perjure themselves to gain convictions. A former detective Michael Bush, speaking from the ■comparative security of Lon■don. said that perjury by :policemen was commonplace. Policemen openly jested, he said, about perjury taking place.

The Auckland journalistj Pat Booth, who has spent! years trying to prove the} innocence of Arthur Allan; Thomas, went before the! cameras to say that he knew; of eight cases where evidence; had been “planted” on sus-> pects. He believed, he said,; that there was sufficient basis for an inquiry. Kevin Ryan, a leading; criminal 1/ yer in Auckland, told TVI that he knew of; cases over the last 15 to 20! years where allegations of j planting evidence were cor-! rect, and “must be aecur- i iate.” Similar statements were, ;made by another lawyer,! !Peter Williams. They made! Itheir allegations calmly and, moderately, and without! reference to current cases.

And again, Michael Bush. 1 the former detective, said' that no less than 50 per cent 1 of complaints of violence bvl the police were justified.) Policemen beat people “fairly; frequently.” he said. He; quoted one case where thei police were after a name, and( savagely beat a person “with; fists, feet and knees.”

A retired judge. Mr Nigel j Wilson, brought up the “odd'

1 rotten apple in the barrel” j explanation for police mal- | practice. Once or twice, he I said, he had had his suspicions about police evidence, iHe had reservations about lawyers’ complaints because I they were based on what 'they had been told by clients. ! But anyone watching that programme—especially if 'they have had experience of (police courts —would be (inclined to think that thei (lawyers and the former! I policeman had presented at ! the very least a prima facie ‘(“one the face of it”) case! i for a thorough-going' (examination of police; ‘methods of obtaining and i presenting evidence against! (accused persons. j Cases were cited where; (judges had disbelieved police! ; evidence and directed iuriesi Ito acquit the accused, or! (completely excluded suspect (Police evidence from a trial. (One judge quoted in the proi gramme said he considered (that the police had indulgd in “trickery.” I One lawyer blamed the (legal profession for not (speaking up, but this programme served to confirm mv I long-standing belief that an ! independent body is needed Ito examine complaints of! (police malpractice. At pres-1 (ent any complaints are dealt; (with internally, by a police ! tribunal. The results are! ;rarely made public, as this' (programme said. The police; i are judges in their own (cause, and the only good! ;served by that is the good! iOf the police. I