Crown case nearly complete

Press, 9 July 1986, Page 4

Crown case nearly complete

One remaining witness has to be called today to complete the Crown’s case in the trial, in the District Court, of a Christchurch detective on four charges of theft of sums of money while he worked in the vice squad during 1983 and 1984.

Yesterday was the second day of the trial of the detective, Mayne William Manson, aged 37.

Manson has denied charges of stealing sums of money totalling $2774, belonging to the Crown and which had been in his possession as a police officer, on four occasions between May 1983, and July, 1984.

The amounts were $2OO, $260, $124, and $2190. Manson, currently suspended from the police force, is alleged to have kept for his own use money which had been confiscated during police investigations of bookmaking and drug offences.

The trial is before Judge Fraser and a jury. Mr C. A. McVeigh appears for the Crown, and

Mr D. I. Jones for Manson.

Arthur Gifford Irvine Rogers, a detective senior-sergeant, resumed his evidence yesterday. He agreed in crossexamination that Manson had been an able and efficient police officer. Asked if Manson could be trusted in his work, he said he never had any doubts about him.

Mr Rogers agreed that Manson had been entrusted with large sums of money. He was responsible for the vice squad’s general expenses fund for its investigations. This fund was maintained to a maximum of $2OO. The witness agreed that from time to time, depending on the size of the operation, sums greater than $2OO would go through this fund during bookmaking investigations.

He agreed that there were regular payments of money to Manson to enable him to carry out his duties in vice squad investigations. Mr Rogers agreed that an accurate summary was that Manson handled

money which he removed from suspected lawbreakers, particularly bookmakers, handled money for investigations and at times lent money to another section to enable them to carry out “sudden” investigations. Mr Rogers said he knew that for quite a large part of his time in the vice squad Manson was completely in control, running the section in terms of investigations preparation of files and other areas of duty in this section.

The witness agreed that doing this work on his own would have made a great demand on a detective’s time.

It would put him under a great deal of pressure, he agreed.

Asked if it would surprise him that a man in that position could have made mistakes, Mr Rogers said everybody could make mistakes. Further evidence was given of Manson’s being involved in handling sums of money, listed in charges against him after they had been forfeited to the Crown by persons con-

victed of gaming offences.

A former senior accounts clerk at the Central Police Station said Manson had not brought amounts of $260 and $124 to the office in June 1983, for payment to the Public Account

John Alexander West a document examiner anu handwriting analysts gave evidence of comparing specimens of Manson’s handwriting and signature with police and court documents and. receipts said to bear Manson’s writing or signature. He said the comparison indicated that the questioned material was written by Manson. He was satisfied there were no forgeries of Manson’s writing. The samples of handwriting of three other police officers, who also had handled documents involved in the four charges was inconsistent with the handwriting

which he concluded from his examination was Manson’s; Cross-examined Mr West said there had been

no efforts made to disguise the handwriting or signature. They were “completely natural” writing.