Statements ‘fabricated by threats of voilence’

Press, 28 February 1981, Page 5

Statements ‘fabricated by threats of voilence’

NZPA' Lancaster A “Mr Asia” trial defendant yesterday spoke of his fear and humilation tinder interrogation by Lancashire detectives. The defendant said that he had no option but to sign two fabricated statements, one because of the threat of violence. One detective screamed at him, and left him in no doubt that he was going to be beaten up, the Londoner, Jack Barclay, said. He said that policemen were lying when they said he had not been ill-treated. But Barclay later agreed that when he eventually came before magistrates, he did not complain about the treatment. A chartered accountant, aged 27, he has pleaded not guilty to two drugs conspiracy charges and maintains that he had no knowledge of it. Barclay was giving evidence on the thirt'--sixth day

of the conspiracy and murder trial at Lancaster Castle. It was the fourth day in succession of a “trial within a trial’.’ in which his counsel is arguing that the police evidence should not be put before the jury. Earlier the policeman in charge of the “Mr Asia” investigation, Detective Superintendent Ray Rimmer, told the Court that Barclay was not interviewed until 50 hours after his arrest because of a shortage of manpower. Mr Rimmer agreed with Barclay’s counsel, Mr

Michael Hill, Q.C., that the British Magistrate’s Court Act could be interpreted to mean that an accused person should be taken before the court within 48 hours of arrest. Mr Rimmer denied that the object of keeping Barclay in a plasticised paper suit was to make him uncomfortable and degraded. When he took the stand Barclay described the suit as very uncomfortable. “You were living in moisture for the whole time,” he said. Barclay, who said he had never been in a police station before his arrest on this case, was taken from London to Chorley, Lancashire, on November 1, 19/9. He said that at the time he was very worried and frightened. When the first of two statements w’as taken Barclay said he objected to what was being written without any result. Although the statement said that he knew of the conspiracy, he said yesterday that at no stage did he make the admission. “At that time (Detective Inspector William) Hacking was screaming at me, saying I was to be put in my place. He kept saying I' must have known,” he said. Barclay said he only signed the statement because he was told to. Before the second interview was taken, Barclay said, he was thrown across the room. “Mr Hacking pushed me into a chair and hit me five

times on the back of my head.

“He said to (Detective Constable Raymond) Bell: ‘Go up to the task force office and see if it’s free. We’re going to give him a spin’. . “I was in no doubt that they were going to beat me up. ... “I was sitting in a chair trying to stop myself from bursting into tears. I didn’t succeed.” The second statement was dictated, he said, by Mr Hacking. “I had no option but to sign it. I was so scared of Hacking. “I’ve never been so afraid, humiliated or scared before and I hope never again.” Under cross-examination by the leading prosecution counsel. Mr Michael Maguire, Q.C., Barclay agreed that he did not raise the subject of his treatment when he went before magistrates on November 5, 1979. “At that time I was in such a daze that I don’t think it mattered,” he said. Mr Maguire asked: “Were you disappointed that your counsel did not rafce it with the magistrates?” n “It wasn’t in my mind, he said. Barclay agreed with Mr Maguire that he was calling several policemen liars. But when the Q.C. asked whether the policemen, who had given evidence under oath earlier this week, were perjurers, the question was disallowed by the judge, Mrs Justice Heilbron, on Mr Hill’s objection.