Police conduct criticised, $8299 costs awarded

Press, 16 August 1980, Page 5

Police conduct criticised, $8299 costs awarded

PA Auckland The police have been ordered to pay $8299 costs to Gregory Carl Reed, who in July, 1978, was. freed at a retrial in Christchurch after serving 17 months of a sixyear jail term for a drugs conviction. .

In giving his written judgment on costs this week Mr Justice Mahon criticised police conduct in the case. He said he was satisfied the Police Department had acted negligently in allowing a long delay — eight months —■ before bringing a prosecution against Mr Reed. The reserved decision was

given to an Auckland lawyer, Mr B. V. Wilson, after he applied for $87,211 costs for Mr Reed in the High Court at Christchurch on June 30, this year. On February 18, 1977, Mr Reed, who was then aged 24, was sentenced to six years jail after being found guilty by a high court jury in Christchurch of importing 8.6 grams of heroin into New Zealand on or about [October 2, 1975. I It was alleged at the trial 'that he planted the heroin, 1 which was said to have had a street value of about [512,000, in cavities carved (into six -rolled magazines

and mailed them from Bangkok to Christchurch.

Following an extensive campaign by Mr Reed’s father Mr Wally Reed, of Timaru, the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial and granted Mr Reed leave to call fresh evidence. At the second trial in Christchurch Mr Justice Mahon upheld a defence motion by Mr Peter Williams of Auckland, that discrepancies in the Crown’s case were so disturbing and unsatisfactory that a reasonable jury, properly directed, would not convict. Justice Mahon in. his decision this week held that if the police were aware on or soon after November . 1, 1975, that they had fingerprint evidence which they later used to arrest Mr Reed, they refrained from arresting him because he i promised to act as an] informer. | He also found that Mr'

Reed was under the impression that he would not be charged in connection with the transaction so long as he co-operated with the police in an attempt to get evidence against a major drug suspect in Christchurch.

Justice Mahon said such an arrangement expressed in that way would, in his view, be an improper exercise of police powers.

He said if a court is of the opinion that any person had acted negligently or in bad faith in bringing the prosecution a court may direct the defendant’s costs should be paid by the Government department on whose behalf that person was acting. “I am satisfied that in general terms the police department acted negligently in allowing this long delay to precede the prosecution of the defendant and, in my opinion, the Police Department ought to pay the ! costs,” he said.