The Mr. Asia Case ‘Police phones tapped’

Press, 31 May 1980, Page 7

The Mr. Asia Case ‘Police phones tapped’

NZPA Chorley The ‘'Mr Asia" syndicate tapped telephones of police stations in New Zealand, the [Magistrate’s Court at Chorley I was told yesterday. A New Zealander, (Terence) Alexander Sinclair, the man police allege took iover as head of the syndicate [after sanctioning the murder of his partner. Martin Christopher Johnstone made the allegations about the New Zealand police in a series of interviews with Lancashire detectives after his arrest. Sinclair, aged 35, who was said . earlier to have had “sufficient control as to be able to influence the due processes of law” in Australia had told Detective Sergeant Earnest Pemberton the syndicate had not had any New Zealand police “on the payroll.” “There was no need,’ he said. The syndicate had had “some police stations bugged” (their telephones tapped). r , There was no further mention of the New Zealand ;police in the brief snatches of ! statements read out and no intention was made .of it later !in cross-examination. i Only snatches of the 89 pages of questions and answers resulting from the interviews were read out in court. But the sections of the testimony which were read in full were those which included reference to the New Zealand police, after being amended to exclude inadmissable matter.

In another brief exert Sinclair defended his girlfriend, a former Auckland lawyer, Karen Soich, aged 24. He told Mr Pemberton: “Look. Karen knows nothing about this at all. She’s a good chick, I would never involve her.” Meanwhile, the committal hearing against the three New Zealanders and nine Britons charged in connection with the murder of the Auckland drugs boss. Johnstone, seems certain to end next Tuesday.

The earlier than expected end to the hearing follows yesterday’s “ninety nine per cent certain” decision by the prosecution not to call a former Auckland kindergarten teacher, Allison Raewyn Dine, at this and also not to call four minor witnesses.

Once the Crown has completed its presentation of evidence the 13 counsel representing the police and the defendants are expected to make individual statements before the Magistrate. Mr John Coffey, rules on whether a prima facie case has been established against any or all of the defendants accused of the various drugs and murder charges involved here. Dine, a woman m her twenties, who is alleged to have been a leading courier for the syndicate, is understood to be in protective custody in Lancashire and will be called at any eventual trial. , . „ Cross-examined by Mr Dermott Wright (for Sinclair) later, Mr Pemberton said he had returned from

Australia earlier this month with Dine and three other Lancashire detectives. He had not heard her give evidence in separate proceedings in Australia but confirmed she was currently in Britain and was “alive and well.” She had been granted immunity from prosecution in Australia, Mr Peniberton said, but he told Mr Wright he did not know if she had been charged in Australia with the possession of heroin. Mr Pemberton told Mr Wright that he and Detective Constable Brian Piper had interviewed Sinclair 12 times in a three-day period last year — immediately after Sinclair had been brought to Chorley from London on November 1.

Sinclair had been dressed in a boiler suit of synthetic plasticised fabric with bare feet, Mr Pemberton agreed, but had later been given his own clothes. Mr Pemberton said he had not spoken to New Zealand or Australian police before questioning Sinclair nor seen police files from those coun-' tries during the questioning. The interviews being questioned by Mr Wright had been completed by the time detectives from New Zealand and Australia arrived in Chorley.

It was the prosection’s case that Sinclair was a senior and influential member of an international drugs conspiracy, who had moved his headquarters to London when under pressure in Australia, and the evidence tended to show that he headed a drug organisation in Australia “where he had sufficient control as to be able to influence the due processes of law.”