Indecent act in 1982 alleged

Press, 11 January 1986, Page 4

Indecent act in 1982 alleged

A man, aged 39, faced in the District Court yesterday a charge of doing an indecent act on a boy, aged 11 years, in 1982, and two charges alleging he intimidated the same boy in September last year. The defendant, who was granted interim suppression of his name at the request of counsel, Mr E. Bedo, elected trial by jury on the charges.

April 10 for the taking of depositions on the charge of doing an indecent act on the boy, between June 1 and 30, 1982, and to April 9 for the taking of depositions on charges on September 26 and again on September 29 last year of intimidating the boy. These two charges allege that with intent to induce the boy to meet him he wrote to the boy threatening that if he did not meet the demand, photographs of the boy would be sent to his mother.

Judge Palmer, in remanding the defendant, granted bail of $2OOO in his own recognisance, and with a surety of $2OOO, on the charge of doing an indecent act, and similar terms for the other two charges. Judge Palmer also imposed as a condition of bail, at the request of the police, that the defendant’s passport be surrendered to the police in the meantime. Mr Bedo had applied for bail and suppression of name, for the defendant, and made submissions in support of his applications. He referred to the length of time until the depositions hearing, and submitted also that the defendant should have his name suppressed at least until the strength of the prosecution’s case against him had been established. Mr Bedo said he believed the case against the defendant was not very strong, more particularly bearing in mind the passage of time, three years and a half, since the alleged indecency, and also the other two charges last September. Mr Bedo contended that the defendant had a perfectly valid and sustainable defence to all three charges. Sergeant W. J. McCormick, who prosecuted, made written submissions in opposition to bail and said it was also opposed in the public

interest He said police inquiries had begun only after some undeveloped film was processed. The Judge granted bail and, in allowing interim suppression of the defendant’s name, said the presumption of innocence applied at this stage and incalculable harm could be caused by precipitate publication of name. OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOUR A man, who twice exposed his private parts in the view of young girls at Beckenham Park, told the police when apprehended that young girls “turned” him “on.” However, the Judge told the defendant, Alan Keith Reynolds, aged ■ 32, an unemployed labourer, that young girls should not be exposed to this type of behaviour, and that such unacceptable behaviour did not turn on the rest of the community. Reynolds admitted charges of behaviour in an offensive manner in Beckenham Park on January 1 and again on January 9. He was convicted and fined $lO9 on each charge. The Judge noted that there was no provision for imposing a prison sentence for this offence. He said, however, that the defendant was on probation and should make arrangements through this service to obtain treatment.

Sergeant McCormick, traversing details of the offences, said that on the two occasions the defendant exposed himself in front of young girls. They left the park after seeing his actions.

When apprehended after the second incident the defendant said he did it because young girls “turned” him “on,” out he did not touch or harm them. J He said he did not intend to cause the children ?; any harm, and wished to bring this behaviour to an end. REMANDED

On two charges of using threatening words in Ealing Street on January 4, Grant Andrew Meiklejohn, aged 20, a gardener, was re-:, manded at large, without plea, to January 21. The charges arose from an incident when police weret called to a party in Papanui Road. Eight other persons | appeared earlier this week.