Counsel blames superiors

Press, 26 February 1983, Page 6

Counsel blames superiors

PA Wellington The superiors of the four Justice Department clerks accused of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice had turned a Nelsonian blind eye to what was going on, said defence counsel, Mr D. S. Deacon, in his final address to the jury in the High Court at Wellington yesterday. Michael , Peter Waluszewski, aged 25, Kevin Joseph McGlinchey, aged 24, David John Thompson, aged 26, and Linda Anne McQuade, aged 24, have denied charges of conspiring with one another and other persons to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice. Mr Justice Greig will sum up the case on Monday. Defence counsel finished their addresses to the jury yesterday, bringing the trial to the end of its third week. They are charged with interfering with proper court procedures in relation to traffic prosecution notices filed by the Ministry of

Transport in the District Court at Wellington for parking infringements said to have been committed by themselves and others. The four have also denied alternative charges of wilfully attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice by returning the notices to the District Court to have them filed, “not served,” knowing they had been served. Mr Deacon, who appeared for Waluszewski, told the Court that by agreement with other defence counsel he was putting the main defence submissions on behalf of. all accused. There had been a very unsatisfatory state of affairs in the minor offences section of the District Court, Mr Deacon said. The accused were simply scapegoats for the section's inefficiencies and it might well be asked why others were not in court with them. Before the jury could decide beyond reasonable doubt

that the accused interfered, with proper court procedures, they would have to decide what those procedures were. Had anyone wanted to interfere with the course of justice they would not have left documents lying about. It was difficult to establish just how the Court system was supposed to work. The departmental manual and schedule of duties were honoured more in the breach than in the observance, and there was what was euphemistically described as local practice. The volume of work for the minor offences section was obviously unmanageable so that procedures were streamlined and short cuts taken. There were too many loopholes and exceptions to so-called court procedures. Had any of the accused been truly criminal conspirators, files would have been destroyed, but none were. All files were in their proper place, Mr Deacon said.