S.I.S. men entitled to object

Press, 1 November 1977, Page 6

S.I.S. men entitled to object

I PA Auckland j Officers of the New Zea. ; land Security Intelligence 'Service were entitled to oject to an application by an Auckland businessman. Mr Pau! Freeman, for a private investigator’s licence, a judge ruled in the Supreme Court at Auckland yesterday. Mr Justice Speight was ■asked for a ruling afret questions arose as to the (standing of the objectors ! .Objections to Mr Free, [man’s aonlication for a private investigator’- licence were filed bv M r V. J. W : lIkinson. le9 a, office' - of I 5.1.5., and Mr P L. Molin[eaux. the Director of Security.

[ Course! for Mr Freeman, Dr R. F. Harrison, submitted that Messrs Wilkinson and Molineaux were actng bevond their official never when they objected to the licence application.

Dr Harrison said Mr Mohneaux made statements in his objection that Mr Freeman claimed or implied on a number of occasions in the last two years that he was emploved by or acting on behalf of the S.T.S.

The legal argument must be dealt with on the basis that these allegations were true, said Dr Harrison. “But my instructions are that th* incidents never took place,” he said. Mr Molineaux said in his objection that Mr Freeman had never been employed bv or authorised to act on behalf of the S.I.S. His Honour said that anv person could, within a month of an application being made, file a notice of objection. The function and scope of the S.I.S. had nothing to do with whether Mr Molineaux qualified as a person, his Honour said.

Mr Molineaux, as a legal officer, was as entitled as anv other resident in New Zealand to make an objection, said his Honour. Equally. Mr Wilkinson had the status to object to the application.