Charge of harbouring escaper dismissed

Press, 3 July 1985, Page 4

Charge of harbouring escaper dismissed

Although “considerable suspicion” attached to a man in relation to a charge against him of harbouring an escaper from Paparua Prison last January, Judge Sheehan in the District Court yesterday held that the charge had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The charge, against Christopher Rangawhenua Morgan, aged 28, unemployed, of receiving Athol Trevor Waters to enable Waters to avoid arrest after escaping from Paparua Prison, was dismissed. Morgan was represented by Mr W. Rosenberg. Sergeant W. J. McCormick prosecuted. Prosecution evidence was that Waters had escaped from Paparua Prison after completing two months of a seven-year sentence. He was apprehended on January 15 in a flat in Salisbury Street which had been occupied by the defendant and his wife. The defendant’s wife,

Raewyn Morgan, subsequently pleaded guilty to a similar charge of harbouring Waters. Detective G. D. Eaton, who called at the flat on January 20, five days after Waters was apprehended there, found the defendant in bed. The defendant was questioned and said Waters had arrived about Sunday, January 13. He said he thought he found out the next day that Waters was a prison escaper. He had known Waters as John until then. Asked why he had let Waters stay, the defendant said he was “not the type to kick anybody out.” Cross-examined, Detective Eaton said he was not aware the defendant and his wife had been separated. The defendant, in evidence, said he had been separated from his wife at the time, and had left the flat but called back to pick up gear “now and again.” His wife was in charge of the flat.

Waters was at the flat on one of the defendant’s visits there. He knew Waters just by the name John. The defendant said he was seen in the flat by the police on January 20 because he had gone there the preceding night to “crash,” as he was fairly drunk. Raewyn Morgan, the defendant’s wife, gave evidence of the couple’s separating last December and said Waters had stayed at the flat at her initiative as she was the occupier. She had not discussed the matter of Waters’ stopping at the flat with the defendant as he did not have a say in who stayed there. Cross-examined the witness said she and* her husband were living together again. She said she had been sentenced for harbouring Waters and it was unfair for the defendant to face a charge when it was her fault. The defendant “just happened to be there at the wrong time.”