False statement by ‘mystery’ man

Press, 21 October 1983, Page 13

False statement by ‘mystery’ man

A man, described as “a bit of a mystery,” was sentenced to nine months periodic detention on .a charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice, by Mr Justice Roper in the High Court at Christchurch yesterday. Sonny Ben Matthews, aged 51, an unemployed car wrecker, had pleaded guilty to the charge on arraignment in the High Court. He admitted that he had procured Donald Bruce Hunt, unemployed, to falsely admit committing two charges of theft or receiving.

Evidence was given at the taking of depositions that the police found parts of two stolen Ford Capri cars in Matthews’ wrecking yard. The vehicles had been stolen from New Brighton and the Bush Inn car park. He was a licensed motor vehicle wrecker. Matthews was arrested on alternative charges of theft or receiving the two Capri cars.

After receiving information, the police interviewed Hunt who, in a written statement, admitted stealing the vehicles and stripping them single-handed. He had stored the parts in

Matthews’ yard without telling him. Later Hunt admitted that the statement was false. He said that after Matthews was bailed on the charges, he had asked him “to take the rap” for the offences and he would forget about a debt Hunt owed for wrecking a car. Hunt could not pay the debt. Mr M. J. Knowles, for Matthews, said that it was a particularly naive offence that had no prospect of success. When the police interviewed Hunt, it did not take them long to realise that Hunt’s confession was false, and was made to get Matthews off the charge he was facing. As the older of the two, Matthews should have had a more mature approach. It was his scheme but it was not a case of Hunt being an innocent victim. > His Honour: Hunt was threatened that if he did not carry on with the scheme there would be some form of retribution. Mr Knowles said that Hunt owed Matthews because Hunt “wrote off’ a car which had been left in Matthews’ custody, so Hunt had something to gain from the offence because his con-

fession was to be regarded as repayment of the substantial debt. Matthews had no intention of carrying out his stupid, idle threat to Hunt. Matthews had lost his business as a car wrecker because of an application by the police to the Court. For the Crown, Mr B. M. Stanaway said that it was clear that the whole scheme was Matthews’ idea and he had gone to considerable lengths to see that it succeeded. He got the car thief to point out to Hunt where he had taken the cars and took Hunt to his solicitor to make a statement. Matthews had much more to gain than Hunt. His Honour said that Matthews was “a bit of a mystery.” The probation report indicated that the offence was quite out of character. “It was a miserable act on your part,” he told Matthews.

He regarded Matthews’ part as more serious than that of Hunt, but having regard for his personal circumstances and that he had stayed out of trouble for many years, he agreed with Mr Knowles that it was not a case for imprisonment.