Mr O’Flynn accused of improper statement

Press, 28 October 1982, Page 18

Mr O’Flynn accused of improper statement

PA Wellington Public statements made by Labour's spokesman on justice, Mr F. D. O’Flynn, have been branded “highly improper” in Parliament, where he was also told that he brought no credit to his title of Queen’s Counsel. The charges were made by the Attorney-General, Mr McLay. and the Prime Minister. Mr Muldoon, as the House debated the estimates of the Crown Law Office.

Mr O'Flynn (Lab.. Island Bay), during the debate, said he wanted to highlight the control the Solicitor-General and his office exercised under law over Crown solicitors in regional centres.

He referred to the case of the shooting of a youth at Kurow this year.

A policeman was acquitted of charges relating to the discharge of a handgun during that incident, charges which the Crown prosecutor said during the policeman's trial would not have been brought to court but for the “outcry” from uninformed people, said Mr McLay.

Mr McLay said the “uninformed people" comment referred to Mr O’Flynn, who had made “highly improper” comments on the case and put pressure on the SolicitorGeneral and police to determine whether a prosecution should proceed.

Mr McLay said the Crown prosecutor in the Kurow case had been talking about improper statements made during the course of a judicial inquiry — “improper statements made by a member of Parliament, a Queen's Counsel. who should have known better.”

“We in this House have seen that before.” Mr McLay said. “We saw it at the time of the Marginal Lands Board inquiry in 1980 when he launched an entirely untrue and entirely unjustified attack on the Honourable John Mills, resulting in his resignation as the Commissioner of Inquiry." Replying, Mr O’Flynn said none of his statements on the Kurow case suggested anything should be done by the Solicitor-General. They were ’perfectly proper questions addressed to the Minister of Police, Mr Couch, about a matter which needed explanation, he said. The shooting occurred early in March, but no decision was made to prosecute until the end of April or beginning of May, said Mr O’Flynn. Little information was given to the public and it was perfectly proper for a member of Parliament to comment on that. On his comment about Judge Mills in 1980 — that he was a member of the

National Party — Mr O'Flynn said he had expressed regret at his statement and had withdrawn it. and he had not ceased to regret that comment. If Mr McLay and Mr Muldoon wanted to continue attacking him on the Mills issue “it is their own conduct as gentlemen that comes into question.” Mr Muldoon said that since Mr O’Flvnn entered Parliament he had not acted as a Q.C. but as a Labour politician. Mr Muldoon said Mr O’Flynn had slandered Judge Mills on the basis of information he subsequently admitted was wrong, saying that Judge Mills was a member of the National Party. The subsequent apology and explanation were “entirely inadequate” to purge the wrong Mr O’Flynn had done to Judge Mills, Mr Muldoon said.

Mr McLay said the apology was at best qualified.

Mr Muldoon: It is quite in order for the Labour Party to bring into this House lawyers, Queen's Counsel, but when they perform here in the way that the member for Island Bay performs, I suggest to him that that he does no credit to the honourable title.