$600 awarded to defendant

Press, 21 January 1983, Page 5

$600 awarded to defendant

The police were ordered to pay $6OO costs to a Christchurch man wrongly accused of indecent assault of a girl, aged 13. by a District Court judge yesterday. In making the order. Judge Bradford ordered final suppression of the name of the man, aged 30. However, the Judge said the widespread inquiries of both the police and Mr G. H. Nation, the counsel for the defendant, would have meant that many of the man’s family and friends would have known he was under suspicion.

After an application for costs by Mr Nation, the Judge allowed Sergeant G. G. Cleland.' for the police, to withdraw the charge against the defendant. Mr Nation detailed to the Court the events since the girl was indecently assaulted at New Brighton’ Beach on August 30. Some weeks later the defendant was picked up by the police and taken to New Brighton Mall, where the police arranged for the young girl to walk through. She positively identified the defendant as the man who had indecently assaulted her. The girl and her brother had told the police that the attacker had been wearing a wedding ring, a brown leather coat, faded blue jeans and had a green and red tattoo of an octopus on one arm. The pair also said that the man was accompanied by an Alsation dog. Mr Nation said that the defendant did not have a brown leather jacket, blue jeans, a wedding ring or an Alsation dog. In place of a tattoo of an octopus, the defendant has a tattoo of a scorpion on the opposite arm to that described by the brother and sister. Mr Nation said that none of these details had been checked at the time by the police, including an assertion by the defendant that he had been at work at the time of the attack. Some weeks after the defendant first appeared in court his assertion that he was at work at the time of

the attack was checked out by the police officer in charge of the case. Mr Nation said. This officer had accepted the assertion without reference to the defendant’s time card, and recommended to his superiors that the charge against the defendant be dropped. However, inquiries by Mr Nation revealed that the case would proceed on the basis of a positive identification. He refused to accept this and began his own inquiries amongst the defendant's family and workmates. One workmate, who had been involved in a fight with the defendant on the day before being approached by Mr Nation, was adamant that the defendant had been at work at the time of the attack.

Mr Nation suggested to the police that on the basis of his findings, further investigations should be carried out by the police.

The day before the case was due to appear in court the defendant was informed that the second investigating officer had recommended that the charge be dropped on the basis of insufficient evidence. Mr Nation said that he went to court to apply for costs only to find that the police intended to continue with the charge, and another hearing date was set. He said that the hearing on that date did not go ahead because of illness on his part. Subsequently an examination of the evidence was made by two prosecution inspectors and the decision to drop the charges was made. Mr Nation told the Judge

that the charge as the result of the mistaken identity had placed the defendant’s marriage under a strain and the defendant had also been involved in considerable costs for defence.

The defendant had a long. list of previous convictions, none of which related to indecent assault. Mr Nation told the Court.

The Judge said that information relating to the charge was sworn on September 20 and that the decision to continue with the charge was made at senior officer level, although the request to withdraw the charge came after further consideration by an inspector.

The Judge said that he was satisfied that the information about the defendant's alibi had been available to the prosecutions branch within three weeks of the defendant’s arrest, but that the decision not to continue with the charge had only been made in the last week. It was a serious allegation to be made against a citizen, a married man. working and living in Christchurch, that he had indecently assaulted a girl, aged 13. the Judge said. The Judge said that there was no challenge to the fact that the police had charged the wrong man. The matter had been going on since September; a long time to have a charge of indecent assault hanging. He said that in cases of special difficulty, complexity or importance. Parliament empowered a judge to order costs in excess of the normal scale, a situation he intended to take advantage of.