‘Private eye’ glamour fictional—Judge

Press, 13 March 1987, Page 7

‘Private eye’ glamour fictional —Judge

An over-zealous selfappointed security guard found on the roof of his employer’s premises in the early hours of January 4, dressed in black and wearing a camouflage jacket, was warned by Judge Erber in the District Court yesterday that the glamour surrounding the private eye existed only in fiction. Judge Erber dismissed charges against John Charles Homeman, aged 30, a computer operator, of being unlawfully on premises and possessing burglary instruments by night.

This was a very strange case, said Judge Erber when giving his decision after a defended hearing. In evidence, greyhaired Homeman, a former hospital orderly said that he had acted with the best of motives, but things had run away on him.

He had let his security work go to his head, and he was acting out a role which was out of place. Evidence was given that about 1.50 a.m. on Sunday, January 4, Homeman was apprehended by a constable on the roof of Healing Industries, Ltd, at 328 Tuam Street. Horneman was dressed completely in black apart from an army camouflage jacket. He was carrying numerous “instruments” — torch, hammer, keys, tape, foldaway saw, pliers, screwdriver, two knives, gloves and handcuffs.

Some of the tools were concealed in the lining of the jacket he was wearing under the army jacket He was wearing sufficient clothing to brave an Antarctic winter, but it was a warm summer night. Interviewed by Detective John Borlase, Horneman said that he was keeping a security watch on the building overnight. He worked for Healing Industries as a customer service officer, and there had been trouble caused recently by strange people and vehicles in the area.

It was admittd by Horneman that he did not have company approval for what he did and did not tell any official about it. He had acted on his own initiative in the interests of the company. Some of the tools he was carrying were used to fix his ancient motorcycle, which was always breaking down. Healing Industries confirmed that he worked for the company, but that he had no authority to be on the premises. He was never appointed to carry out security on the building, which had adequate coverage by other means. In evidence, Homeman said that he had worked for Healings until he was dismissed recently. In January he was making an evaluation of the security system at the Scout jamboree at Rangiora at the request of his wife, who was associated with the girl guides who

were going to hold a jamboree on the same site in about a year. There were security stickers on his motorcycle so that he could gain access to the camp site at all times.

While he was passing his company’s premises, just before midnight on New Year’s Eve, he saw two vehicles in the car park and a number of young persons drinking in the grounds. He ordered them to leave.

As they were getting into the vehicles, one youth said: “I’ll see you later, mate” in a threatening manner. Because of

that he feared that the group would return smash windows, vandalise the premises and break into the building, which was closed for the holidays, so he decided to keep it under observation at night

On the first occasion he kept watch from an adjoining premises, but as he could be easily seen from passing vehicles he decided to climb on to the roof of his firm’s premises where he could be hidden.

After he had been up there for about half an hour he saw a man acting in a suspicious manner,

dodging in and out of the shadows. He did not learn until later that the suspicious character on the ground was watching the suspicious character on the roof. With complete detachment, he watched fire engines and police cars pull up in the road below, Homeman said. At that stage he could have made off, but as he had no guilty intent he remained where he was. When confronted by a constable, he gave his name, produced identification and said that he worked for the firm in the building.

To Sergeant John Dwyer, who prosecuted, Horneman said he knew that the premises contained an elaborate security alarm system and if he entered it security guards would have been there within six minutes. He agreed that security had nothing to do with him, but said that he felt responsible for the damage which might have occurred as the result of his ordering the youths off the premises. Judge Erber said that Horneman had given an explanation for the articles in his possession which was entirely con-

sistent with innocence. It had not been proved that he had been on the roof without reasonable excuse as he had given a credible explanation. Homeman had thought that he was doing a favour for the company, but that was a misapprehension. There was absolutely no evidence that the tools and other articles he had could be used for burglary. He told the detective that he had acted out of the best of motives, but he should remember that the road to hell was paved with good intentions. Judge Erber said.