Youth found guilty of pharmacy hold-up

Press, 16 May 1984, Page 4

Youth found guilty of pharmacy hold-up

After a jury in the High Court yesterday found a youth guilty on charges arising from the armed hold-up of the Normans Road Pharmacy, he turned to Detective Sergeant David Porteous, the officer in charge of the case, and said: “I hope you are pleased with yourself.” Richard David Bradley, aged 19, a factory worker, was found guilty on charges that with Malcolm Robertson Hurst he robbed Andrew Anthony Godding and unlawfully took a Holden utility truck, the property of Raymond Taylor, a factory supervisor.

Mr Justice Roper remanded Bradley in custody to June 1 for sentence. Mr N. W. Williamson appeared for the Crown and Mr S. C. Barker for Bradley. The defence called no evidence and the Crown 17 witnesses.

Hurst, who has been jailed for four years for his part in the robbery, refused to give evidence when

called on Monday. Evidence was given by Mr Godding, the owner of the Normans Road Pharmacy, that he was confronted by two men wearing balaclavas, one of whom was carrying a sawn-off shotgun. The gun was pointed at him by one of the men who said: “I want drugs, quick.” Money and cheques to the value of $1950 and drugs comprising narcotics and barbiturates to the value of about $3OO were stolen from the floor safe. Before the robbers ran from the shop they bound Mr Godding’s hands and feet, gagged him with masking tape, left him lying on the floor and ripped out the telephone.

Just as the two robbers dashed out of the shop, a detective who had been alerted by persons who had seen the masked men going into the premises, arrived on the scene. The robbers made their escape in the utility truck which had been unlawfully

taken earlier. Bradley and Hurst were arrested after a chase through streets and properties near Brookside Terrace and Jelly Park. In his address to the jury, Mr Barker said that the Crown had failed to prove its case because there was no reliable identification of Bradley as one of the robbers. He did not suggest that the two constables were lying but that they were mistaken because they had only a fleeting glimpse of the offender as they chased him over fences and behind buildings. Mistaken witnesses could be very convincing.

The purported identification of Bradley in the cells at the Central Police Station by one of the constables was completely worthless. The only proper method would have been to hold an identification parade. The jury had to be left with more than a reasonable doubt and Bradley had to be acquitted, Mr Barker said.