Inquiry into Thomas case finds no misconduct by police

Press, 6 May 1978, Page 2

Inquiry into Thomas case finds no misconduct by police

PA Wellington A police inquiry has found that allegations of police misconduct in the Arthur Allan Thomas case and other cases, raised by Dr J. E. Sprott and an Auckland journalist, Pat Booth, in submissions to a Cabinet subcommittee in 1976 cannot be substantiated.

The Minister of Police (Mr McCready) said yesterday that he had studied a “very comprehensive” police report covering fully documented investigations into allegations of police misconduct made in a television "Dateline” programme last year, and those raised by Dr Sprott and Mr Booth in 1976.

“I am satisfied that none of the allegations can be sustained,” he said. “Indeed, there is no evidence to support the contention that the police acted outside the law in any of the investigation.”

The inquiry had been “thoroughly carried out” by Assistant Commissioner K. O. Thompson and his team, said Mr McCready.

“After perusing the 69page report, and five folders of supporting documentation, there is no doubt in my mind that any other form of inquiry would not have elicited much of the information vital to bringing the matters to a satisfactory conclusion.

“When the majority of the people directly involved in the offences were seen, they had no complaint to make or were not at all interested in the matter,” he said.

“Indeed, many expressed surprise that their cases had been raised in public without their knowledge or consent.”

Mr McCready said that it was a matter of some concern that one of the allegations raised had been

admitted as “a defence ploy,” and without any foundation.

The investigation clearly established that there had been no miscarriage of justice in any of the cases, he said.

“I have great faith in the integrity of the police who themselves will not to any degree condone unlawful methods by any member who may be tempted for unknown reasons to act outside the law,” said Mr McCready.

“It must not be overlooked that all arrested persons appear before a court, where the evidence is closely examined and tested before a judge or magistrate, with defence counsel being afforded every opportunity to expose any police misconduct,” he said. He said he was sure any evidence of misconduct would be promptly referred

to the Commissioner of Police, for appropriate action.

“Perhaps it is of some significance that in none of the cases raised has the Judiciary, the prosecutor, or the defence counsel seen fit to complain to the ’commissioner or any other authority, and most of the cases raised are many years old, some having occurred as long as 12 years ago. “I consider that if persons are prepared to make allegations of misconduct they must accept some responsibility toward producing evidence in support of their claims,” said Mr McCready. “As I have said, no evidence of misconduct has been presented or gained, and I think it is most unfortunate that the police image has to a degree been unnecessarily tarnished through publicity.”