NOT SUSTAINED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22240, 28 January 1947, Page 2

NOT SUSTAINED

COERCION CLAIM DETECTIVES ACCUSED ALLEGED MANHANDLING (P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH. Jan. 28. An inquiry under section 4 of the Police Force Amendment Act, 1924, was held at the Christchurch central police station on January 20 into allegations made by Mr. W. R. Lascelles, solicitor, on behalf of his client, Henry Harold McGrath, in the Christchurch Magistrate's Court on November 28. The allegations were that McGrath had been manhandled by two members of the force. Acting-Detective Tait and Detective E. A. Stevens.

Superintendent J. Fox, of Napier, was the inquiry officer. The Police Department was represented by Inspector T. E. Holmes and Mr. T. A. Gresson appeared for the two members of the force concerned.

Evidence for each side was given by several witnesses, who were cross'examined and at the conclusion the finding was that the evidence did not sustain the charge made on November 28. Henry Harold McGrath, who had been charged before Mr. Raymond Ferner. S.M., with converting to his own use a motor car. said in evidence that when he was taken to the police station he had asked for a solicitor, but that his request had been refused. He had made a statement which he had signed, but he did not know what was in it and he had not been previously warned that he was not compelled to make a statement. Treatment Described

After telling him that the statement was “lies,” both detectives got on to him, McGrath said. He alleged that Detective Stevens threw him round the room and after further rough treatment Detective Tait asked him if he was going to confess.

He must have been in the room for an hour, at the end of which one of the detectives said: "We’ve missed dinner through you.” He did not leave the room until after 12 o’clock.

As a result of the manhandling he had strained an elbow and had a big lump over one eye. He had had lunch at the police station, after which he, with the detectives, had gone to his home, where nothing was found. They returned to the police station and Detective Stevens took a statement.

“If you do not sign it, you are in for another hiding. We have all day,” said Detective Stevens, according to the witness. He signed the statement and was locked up. Lying Denied

He did not tell the detectives he had lied in his original statement and wanted to make another one.

In dismissing the charge, the magistrate said that the accused had made a statement and counsel for the defence challenged this as a voluntary statement. Called in evidence the accused said he had been manhandled and compelled to make a second statement which he had signed. This was a serious charge, which no doubt in due course would be engaging the attention of the appropriate authority, the magistrate said. In fairness to the detective officers the right procedure would bo adopted appropriate to the charges made.

It would appear that, from 10 to 11 a.m, on the day he was apprehended, the accused was in the hands of the police. He was taken from the cells at 7 p.m. and was found to be injured. How the accused came by the injury had not been explained. Having regard to the circumstances and the long time the accused was in the hands of the police and the variance with the first, he was not satisfied that the statement was a voluntary admission by the accused.