Inquiry told of police note-taking

Press, 6 September 1980, Page 3

Inquiry told of police note-taking

PA Auckland The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case heard yesterday that the practice of keeping notes of police conferences during important investigations was left, in the main, .to the officer in charge. . i Detective Chief Superintendent B. Wilkinson said ithat there were no instructions on the subject in the ipolice manual. ; He said that in the Initial, ■stages of the Crewe homicide investigation, notes of I the conferences were recorded and typed up. I Mr Justice Taylor, the commission’s chairman, said Ithat until October 19, 1970, nothing had been achieved by way of a solution to the (crimes, but there had been full .reports of conferences and plans. However,. after October 19, there was. “tremendous activity,” but practically no conference notes. . Mr Wilkinson said that the officer in charge of each inquiry conducted it in his own way. Often he would give verbal instructions to members of his team. , His Honour: But would you have recorded no instructions? Witness: It would depend on the size of the team. If I had given instructions to 20 men, I would have recorded them in my notebook. Mr Wilkinson said he did not find it unusual that there was no record of a conference on October 26 between four senior detectives connected with the investigation. The decision to arrest Mr Thomas would not have been made by Detective Inspector B. T. N. Hutton on his own. In earlier evidence, Detective Sergeant T. James said that in 1973 he had worked with Detective Sergeant

,Ryan on the vetting of the I jury panel for the second trial. His job was to talk about people on the jury panel with other police officers. ■He made no notes of his findings. His Honour said that the I inquiry was unique in that it (involved the investigation of -everybody on the jury list, and yet there was not one document showing the results of that investigation. The witness said that if he had found somebody who (was “of interest to us,” he I would possibly have marked I the jury list. i Sergeant D. E. Henderson (said that from May, 1969, he I was in charge of the inforImatiOn section of the Auckland Central police sta.ion. iHe had a comprehensive list (of all persons convicted of .offences throughout New Zealand. Before 1977, he used to receive a copy of. Supreme Court jury, lists about a 'week in advance, to see if I any people on them had convictions. The week before the second Thomas trial, he received a list from somebody who could have been Detective Sergeant Ryan. The person handing him the list had jokingly remarked, “Give this one special treatment,"