Detective cleared of theft charge after Crown case

Press, 2 July 1986, Page 4

Detective cleared of theft charge after Crown case

Without requiring defence evidence to be given, Judge Paterson, in the District Court yesterday, freed a Christchurch detective of a charge of theft of a stereo, which had come into his possession in a police undercover operation. At the completion of the Crown’s case early yesterday afternoon, the Judge granted an application that the detective, William Douglas Schwass, aged 31, be discharged on the charge that, between October 3, 1982, and July 18, 1985, he stole a three-in-one stereo while the unit was in his possession as a police officer. The application was sought by defence counsel, Mr G. E. Langham, under provisions of section 347 of the Crimes Act, on grounds that, on the Crown’s evidence no jury properly directed, would convict the defendant; or alternatively that it was unsafe to leave the case before the jury because of the concessions made by a Crown witness, another detective, regarding that witness’s state of mind. After discharging Schwass, who has been on suspension from police work pending his trial, the Judge discharged the jury from the case. Before the trial began on Monday, Mr Langham also had been successful in having Schwass discharged on a similar theft charge, alleging that between April 14, 1983, and July 18, 1985, he stole a leather jacket while the property was in his possession as a police officer. Mr S. G. Erber prosecuted for the Crown.

Evidence for the Crown on Monday had been that after the undercover operation during 1982-83 Schwass, who had supervised the undercover constable, and the constable were commended by the Commissioner of Police and senior Christchurch police officers on the success, of the operation. However, Schwass was charged late last year with the theft of a stereo, which the undercover constable had purchased from a suspected offender, and delivered to Schwass at his father’s house. A Crown witness, Detective S. A. Carlton, gave evidence that while he lived at Schwass’s house last July he returned to the house to find the stereo missing. He mentioned this to Schwass, who said he had removed it in case the police came looking. Later, another stereo was seen in the house and, the witness said, Schwass said he had borrowed it and some other property to cover in case the house was searched. The stereo, exhibited in court, was not the unit the detective saw in Schwass’s house. Cross-examined, Detective Carlton said he had sought psychological and psychiatric help relating to his emotional state,. from stress connected with the break-up of his marriage and pressures of work. Other evidence was that, because of inadequate facilities at the police station to store, out of sight, the large quanti-

ties of goods recovered in police undercover operations, it was not unusual for an operator in charge of an undercover policeman to store items of property at his or his parents’ house, pending court prosecutions of alleged offenders. It was quite normal for operators to use items, as a means of covering up to visitors that the property was not their own. A woman, now living in Australia, gave evidence yesterday that the stereo, exhibited, had been purchased by her when she shared a Christchurch property with a man. She had left the stereo with him after leaving this address. She knew Schwass through this man. She had never seen the stereo at Schwass’s house, and he had never asked her to borrow it. Most of yesterday’s evidence related to questioning of Schwass by Detective Inspector James Millar, who said he had searched Schwass’s house last October for property which might have come from the undercover operation in 1982-83. He found nothing. Schwass told Mr Millar that Detective Carlton had misconstrued their whole conversation, in alleging that Schwass had stated he retained the stereo after the undercover operation and had stolen it. In cross-examination, Mr Millar said his understanding of what occurred with the stereo was that the undercover constable purchased the three-in-one stereo from a suspected offender, and handed it to Schwass, his operator. That was the stereo which Detective Carlton claimed was in Schwass’s house about July 16 last year, and which he alleged Schwass got rid of and borrowed another from another detective to replace it, Mr Millar said- . He said Schwass told him that Detective Carlton was mistaken, and that the stereo he first had in the house belonged to a man (he named) and was the one exhibited in court. Mr Millar said there

was no suggestion that the stereo, exhibited, was the one purchased by the undercover operator and given to Schwass. That was the stereo Schwass claimed Detective Carlton was mistaken about. Mr . Langham applied for Schwass’s discharge after the completion of Mr Millar’s evidence, and the Crown’s case. Upholding the application, the Judge said that even if Detective Carlton’s evidence of his discussions with Schwass was accepted, he was still far from clear, and the jury also must be, regarding the particular stereo involved in the charge. He said also that there was evidence of the operation being a very successful one, with 70 offenders apprehended and considerable property recovered. Evidence was of lack of storage for property, and the need to preserve secrecy, and thus the storage and use of items of property in homes of police officers involved. Addressing jurors, after granting the discharge, the Judge said the evidence did not, and could not go so far as to establish that it was the stereo, exhibited, that was in Schwass’s house. Nobody had given evidence even of the brand of stereo. The charge was of a very serious nature, and had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in regard to the specific stereo. Mr Langham, in seeking the discharge, had mentioned what he termed the lack of satisfactory evidence regarding the identity of the stereo, the period of time, nearly three years, covered in the charge, and expressed concern at the reliability of Detective Carlton’s evidence, bearing in mind' his concessions as to his state of mind. Mr Erber had challenged the application, but said,,on the question of identification of the stereo that the Crown had to accept that there was no evidence that any stereo which was in Schwass’s house up toj July 16, 1983, had come from the police undercover operation.