Rehearing for policeman

Press, 21 May 1982, Page 5

Rehearing for policeman

The rehearing of two smuggling charges against a Greymouth police sergeant has been' ordered by Mr Justice Hardie Boys in a reserved decision given in the High Court yesterday.

Wayne Leslie Ford, a police sergeant, had appealed against his conviction by Judge Frampton in the Christchurch District Court on two charges of smuggling on May 29. 1981; The charges were defended.

Judge Frampton fined /Ford $l5O omeach charge. Mr Justice Hardie Boys has - said that the District Court judge had misdirected himself on several matters when he alloWed the appeal. The appeal was heard on February - 22. ‘ Messrs J. Cadenhead and K. Taylor appeared fqr Ford, and Mr D. J. L.. Saunders for the Crown. . •His Honour said, that Ford had declared;,the : articles involveiDin '.one--df the charges when he’,arrive‘d at Christy church - Airport- after, a. holiday. in Australia; but, not at the- prise? forwhich they were -purchased;-”: He gave what he said -jyas the manu-i, facturers’ ■ prices. •■ • Ford’s - explanation was that prior to leaving for the

holiday he obtained from the Customs Office in Greymouth a brochure and advice which indicated that the goods should be declared at the manufactured value in the country of purchase. The second charge involved the landing of goods in New Zealand with the intent defraud the revenue of customs in that he failed to acknowledge the articles at all.

That failure was acknowledged by Ford, but he said that all the articles involved in that charge were gifts from /a friend in Melbourne and he understood that he was not required to declare gifts. Dealing with the charge in which the manufacturers' charges were detailed Mr Justice Hardie Boys said that he could not see how the prosecution case could have been held to have been established beyond reasonable doubt without a clear rejection of both Ford and his wife.

“That the District Court Judge found it unneccessary to address himself to that issue is I think due to the •fact that he had misdirected himself as to the onus of proof,” said his Honour.

It appeared.that the Judge was concerning himself more with the reasonableness of Ford's belief than with the essential question of whether Ford, in completing the declaration as he did. intended to defraud the revenue.

On the charge of failing to declare some goods his Honour said that Ford had said that the items had been given to him in Melbourne and it was his belief that as they were gifts it was not necessary for him to declare them. He did not indicate the source of his belief. That belief could well be encouraged by the form of declaration. It read: “List all the goods acquired overseas and from a duty-free source in New Zealand' and it contained a column in which the price of each item was to be listed."

His Honour: “This wording is hardly conducive to the disclosure of gifts for which nothing has been paid. The word, acquired,’ has a meaning wide enough to include a gift but that is not of assistance in consideration of the question here.” The question was whether in the context in which it was used on the declaration form, it so clearly included

gifts as to dispel all reasonable doubt that a declarant might have thought otherwise. “1 do not think it can fairly be held to have that effect." his Honour said. The Judge made no finding on the question of belief ib that context. Instead he appeared to have decided the matter on the basis that there had been no gift at all. It appeared that the Judge had misdirected himself in two fundamental respects. He had again expressed an erroneous view as to the onus of proof. The question was not whether the goods were bought by Ford or his friend but whether there was a reasonable possibility that

Ford believed that he did not have to disclose the goods. Rejection of Ford's explanation meant that he and his wife were untruthful in their evidence and their friend made a false affidavit. It meant that the story was fabricated prior to ’ their arrival in New Zealand or spontaneous when the customs officers discovered the goods.

"It means that Mr Ford took a gambld that because he was a police officer his bags would not be searched — for there was no concealment of any of the goods and those that had not been declared would have been discovered the moment the suitcase they were in was opened." said his Honour.