Kisses at midnight; officer charged

Press, 20 December 1978, Page 7

Kisses at midnight; officer charged

Nelson reporter I A couple of kisses at midmight cost a Nelson traffic I officer a conviction, land a $6O fine after he had appeared in the Magistrate’s Court at Nelson yesterday and admitted a charge of assault.

He is David Milton Liebezeit, aged 37. who pleaded guilty to assaulting Susan Julie Watson in Nelson on December 8.

In declining the plea of counsel (Mr C. N. Tuohy) for a discharge under section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act and for suppression of defendant’s name, Mr K. H. J. Headifen, S.M., told the defendant that it was incomprehensible how he had allowed himself to get into such a position. Sergeant D. Allen said that about midnight on December 8 the complainant was walking home along Annesbrook Drive in a distressed condition after having had a row with her boyfriend. The defendant, on duty, saw the complainant, whom he knew, stopped riding his motor-cycle, approached her, talked with her, and gave her a cigarette. He had then taken her by the arm and led her into a right-of-way where he kissed her on top of the head and then on the lips, said Sergeant Allen. The complainant had freed herself and walked off. She was overtaken by the defendant on his motorcycle. He stopped and again kissed her on the lips, he said. The complainant had

walked on and had passed the defendant who was seated on his motor-cycle at a service station a little further on. The defendant denied having kissed the girl a second time, said Mr Tuohy, and he denied taking her" by the arm and leading her up a right-of-way. He had been driving home after finishing' work when he saw a figure darting into a motel entrance. He was suspicious and returned on his motorcycle for another look. The complainant was on the footpath and he recognised her. She told him she was upset, and he had given her a cigarette. He had one himself, and because he was in uniform he went back to the fenceline to smoke it. The complainant had told him she had had a row with her boyfriend and as she was distressed, he had put his arm round her to comfort her and gave her a kiss. No force was used, and the complainant had made no objection, said Mr Tuohy. She had walked on. The defendant had passed her and asked if she was all right. Given the assurance that she was, he had driven off. That was their last contact, said Mr Tuohy. The girl’s boyfriend had seen her later that evening and as a result of what he was told a complaint was made to the police, said Mr Tuohy. He submitted that it was only a technical assault, but the defendant felt he had done wrong and blamed himself for getting into such

;a position, said Mr Tuohy. If the defendant had been I a private citizen, possibly [only a warning would have been given him. He was married, with five children, was involved in church and youth activities and had "been working in the Nelson district for five years, said Mr Tuohy. As a result of this one act he would be dismissed, and his career as a traffic officer ended. Because of this, he asked the Magistrate to discharge him under section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act and to suppress his name.

Traffic Officer Liebezeit will not lose his job automatically upon conviction, according to Mr R. A. Kelly, a commissioner of the State Services Commission. He told “The Press” yesterday afternoon that conviction did not necessarily mean dismissal. The commission would receive from the Ministry of Transport a recommendation based on a report from the traffic officer’s immediate superior, Chief Traffic Officer D. R. Tucker, of Nelson.

Mr Tucker said yesterday that where traffic officers had been charged with serious offences — those carrying penalties of six months imprisonment or more — they were usually suspended immediately until the outcome of the court hearing. Traffic Officer Liebezeit, he said, had not been suspended