‘Bent cops’ allegation ridiculed by Crown

Press, 11 May 1984, Page 7

‘Bent cops’ allegation ridiculed by Crown

The defence would have the jury believe that from Invercargill to Auckland the Criminal Investigation Branch was riddled with “bent,” dishonest detectives who rigged fingerprint evidence, took $3OOO bribes, offered unauthorised $20,000 rewards and conspired to convict innocent persons, said Mr G. S. Noble in the High Court yesterday. Mr Noble was making the final address for the Crown in the trial of Alastair John Barr, aged 32, who had denied a charge of aggravated robbery involving the largest sum ever stolen from a bank in New Zealand.

Mr Justice Roper will sum up this morning and the jury will retire to consider its verdict. More than 80 witnesses were called by the Crown and the defence in the trial, which began on April 30. Barr pleaded not guilty to a charge that with another

man, who is not named, he robbed Lewis Graeme Steele, the temporary manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Lumsden, of $106,722, while armed with a revolver on March 17,1983. Frequent references were made during the trial to Gibson Grace, whose badly decomposed body, which had bullet wounds in the back of the head, was found beneath the floor of the garage of a house in Titirangi.

In his final address, Mr Noble implied that the second of the two men involved in the armed hold-up of the Lumsden bank and who carried a sawn-off shotgun. was Gibson Grace.

Messrs Noble and R. H. Ibbotson, both of Invercargill, appeared for the Crown and Mr D. C. Fitzgibbon and Mrs L. O. Smith, for Barr.

Mr Noble said that the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Barr

was one of the two men who had held up the bank and that he had been the one with the silver revolver. The two offenders had made off at high speed on a motor-cycle. Although the name of Gibson Grace had been mentioned frequently during the evidence, he was not the man on trial, nor was Richard Graham Morgan, who was serving a sentence for being an accessory after the fact to the bank robbery.

Much of the Crown evidence was circumstantial but that was not unusual in a crime such as robbery where, of necessity, the offenders were disguised. However, the chain of circumstantial evidence, as well as the direct evidence, pointed inexorably to Barr as the man with the revolver. There was nothing wrong or second-rate about circumstantial evidence. One of the most conclusive strands in the chain of circumstantial evidence was the conversation related by Morgan which took place between Barr and Grace during an all-night drinking session in the house at Titirangi.

Both Barr and Grace made remarks which could have only been known by the offenders who had been present in the bank when the hold-up took place. The attempt by the defence to establish alibi evidence that Barr was at his brother-in-law’s home about the time the robbery was committed or shortly after, did not stand up to close examination, Mr Noble said.

The brother-in-law, Alistair Frederick Proctor, a chef, gave evidence for the defence to support the alibi, but he appeared terribly nervous and evasive. He did not really know what time Barr had arrived at his home on March 17 because he said he did not wear a watch. Proctor did not know the make of the car Barr was driving and he was not sure about its colour. He was very vague about the clothing Barr had on, yet he claimed Barr had been with him for IVz hours.

It was highly significant that Proctor had made a written statement to the police which he had refused to sign, which he had admitted in evidence. In that statement Proctor had said that he was home alone at Arrowtown when Barr arrived about lunchtime. He was not sure what time Barr got there and Barr had told him: “If anyone asks you any questions you are to say that I arrived at 11.30 a.m.” Proctor’s statement continued that Barr had not told him why he should say that but once he heard about the armed robbery that morning at Lumsden, he guessed why.

Mr Noble submitted that the statement made by Proctor was true and he had not claimed that he had been coerced into making it by the police. In fact the reverse had been the case, as it appeared that Proctor had been coerced by Barr into providing the basis for his phoney alibi. One witness called by the Crown, Nora Mary Brady, who lived in Blenheim Road, Christchurch, had suffered a catastrophic and

very convenient loss of memory as soon as she got into the witness box. It was at her home that the police found parts from the motorcycle which had been stolen from Maxwell Street, a few blocks away.

The defence called two witnesses who had been convicted of murder, in support of the contention that Morgan was known as Joey, which was used by one robber to the other while they were in the bank. Both witnesses had numerous convictions for other offences.

Referring to the letter which had been folded into a small, tight square bound with Sellotape, Mr Noble said that it was obvious that it was nothing more than a crude fabrication organised by Barr after his previous, trial. In it Morgan allegedly confessed that he had given false evidence against Barr and was prepared to refute that testimony provided he was given certain assurances.

Morgan had no reason to write such a letter, said Mr Noble.

Barr had been a far from convincing witness in the box. He had acknowledged that he was a drug dealer, bookmaker, a dealer in guns and was the G.M., or general manager, of a group set up to distribute drugs. “From the evidence you might well conclude that Barr is the boss of a highly organised crime ring with its fingers in many pies. He has no regular job but always has plenty of money to stay at expensive hotels and to hire numerous rental cars,” Mr Noble said. It appeared that when giving evidence Barr only told the truth when it suited him. At other times he was devious, evasive and unconvincing. In giving evidence Barr had strengthened the Crown case against himself. His memory of events was very selective and he could only recall the events which were of advantage to him.

The defence had been at great pain to smear the detectives involved in the case. It was implied that there was a whole host of dishonest, “bent” policemen who fabricated evidence to suit themselves.

“These policemen were just doing their job, but the defence would have you believe that there was a conspiracy in the C. 1.8. from Invercargill to Auckland to get Barr by book or by crook. Those kind of allegations are very easy to make,” Mr Noble said.

It was the Crown’s case that Barr had planned and executed the robbery. He was the mastermind who organised the hold-up which was to provide funds for drug dealing, but he was undone by a thorough and competent police investigation and he had to face the consequences. “A balanced view of the evidence must lead you to the inevitable conclusion that Barr is guilty as charged,” said Mr Noble. Mr Fitzgibbon said in his final address that there were so many holes and inconsistencies in the Crown case that it was not possible

to convict Barr on such botched, highly suspect evidence.

Mr Fitzgibbon said the Crown had proceeded in the trial on the assumption that Barr was the man in the bank with the revolver. At no time had he been charged with being an accessory.

Mr Fitzgibbon contended that the police had twisted facts to fit their theories about the robbery’. He said the Crown had accepted the evidence of the bank clerk, Miss Smith, that the robbery finished about 11.10 a.m. as being the most accurate.

Roablocks had been established on the only three possible river crossings at 11.35 a.m.

Mr Fitzgibbon disputed the Crown contention that Barr must have travelled from the bank on a motorcycle and then" changed to a previously parked rental car.

Three people had given evidence of picking up the banknotes on the road, but none had seen a brown car pass them. Nor had a road repair gang seen this vehicle.

Mr Fitzgibbon said Barr was a man who lived in a twilight world. Most citizens would not realised that some people lived like this and that marijuana was sent round New Zealand in courier packs and that guns were available almost at will for those able to pay for them. Barr had disclosed his past history, although he had not been obliged to do so.

Mr Fitzgibbon said it had been suggested that Morgan had been just an ordinary witness.

Morgan had a real problem. The body of Gibson Grace was buried under the garage of the premises where he lived in Titirangi. He was living under a “sword of Damocles.”

Morgan had been granted a conditional immunity and told he would be dealt with as no more than an accessory if he indicated where Grace’s body was buried where parts of the weapon had been disposed, and other matters.

Morgan had then made a 12-page statement. All of a sudden the situation had been turned round from Barr’s being suspected

as on the periphery to his being accused of being the mastermind.

Mr Fitzgibbon said the Crown had called no evidence from Air New Zealand, motel proprietors, or others to corroborate its allegations of the various journeying around New Zealand by those allegedly involved in the robbery, and of places where they stayed.

He submitted that Barr’s fingerprints on the motorcycle helmet were consistent with his having touched the helmet on the floor of a police car. Mr Fitzibbon, during his address, traversed a number of areas of the. Crown’s case and evidence which he said were examples of the police’s desire, as one witness had put it to get Barr “by hook or by crook.”