Men claim decision unfair

Press, 4 June 1988, Page 7

Men claim decision unfair

PA Auckland Some of the men arrested during a police swoop on a “notorious” Auckland public toilet believe it is unfair they were treated differently from a Justice Department employee also caught in the raid.

The men said there seemed to be one rule for some, another for others. Unlike the other 13 men arrested at the Howe St toilets, Newton, last Friday, the Justice Department worker: Had his case shifted to the North Shore District Court.

Had incomplete details of his offence read to the judge.

Was discharged without conviction. Had his name and other details suppressed. Three other men, also picked up for allegedly behaving in an offensive manner in the toilet, have since spoken about the case to the “Auckland Star.”

“I think it’s terrible if they can do things for some and not for others,” said one of the men, a middle-aged Aucklander. “I don’t think it’s right that someone gets off in that way, particularly if

they work for that department.” Like most of those arrested, police allege the man performed , an indecent act (masturbation) while standing at the urinal. He said he went to the toilets to urinate, and intended defending the offensive behaviour charge brought against him. Another of those arrested, a West Aucklander in his 40s, pleaded guilty to his charge last Saturday and was convicted and fined. He believed it was unfair he now had a criminal record, while the Justice Department worker was discharged without conviction. “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know — and what strings you can pull. It does seem that the judgments in the courts are going a bit out of line perhaps in that one judge is giving a discharge under section 19 (of the Criminal Justice Act) and

another is convicting with a fine.” North Shore District Court Judge William Mitchell, who presided over the Justice Department worker’s case on Monday, yesterday declined to comment.