WHAT POLICE INQUIRY REVEALED

NZ Truth, Issue 1126, 30 June 1927, Page 5

WHAT POLICE INQUIRY REVEALED

More Light On The Dismissal of Ex-Detective Lambert From High Position

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE HEARD BY COMMISSIONER

HEN th

opened at police h e adqvar t c r s, Auckland, concerning the grave allegations levelled by Leslie Gregson Sissons against Chai> les A. Lambert, Superintendent W. G. Wohlmann presided, Ins p c c t or

Mcllveney prosecuted, whilst the accused, Lambert j •was represented by. Lawyer McVeagh.

, Charles Lambert pleaded guilty to a charge of accepting a gratuity of £ 3 from Leslie Sissons on Friday, March 11, 1927. So far as "N.Z. Truth" has been able to ascertain, this is the only charge brought by the Department against Lambert. ;.-. As the result of the findings of • this court-of inquiry, Commissioner Mcllveney "dismissed Charles Lambert from the police force. Neither "N.Z. Truth" nor the public 1b aware what the findings of, the court of inquiry were m. respect of the allegations of blackmail made hy Sissons. . No restitution of the money alleged to have been .obtained, from him has been made to Sissons. ■Leslie Gregson Sissons on oath stated that he was a blacksmith carrying on business" m partnership with his father at Devonport, and. residing irt. Upper Queen Street.. : i. ■ He had been convicted, he said, at the Supreme Court, Auckland, on April 13, 1921, for theft, and.w as placed on probation, for three years, again convicted m September, 1925, for theft from N.Z. .Roads Construction Co., and again placed on probation for three years and ordered to abstain from liquor. . His last conviction was when he pleaded guilty to the theft of a hat on August 19, 1926. This time his probation was extended for 12 months and he was ordered to abstain from liquor. Jn each instance his offence had been committed when he was under the influence of. drink. . „ "J -was bluffed into pleading guilty, 1 he stated, referring to: the theft of the hat. "Detective Lambert told me that T would go up -for two years if I did not admit taking it.", Sissons said that he denied taking the hat when .Detectives Lambert and McWhirter called on him. Lambert had. been alone with him m •th'e room. After asking him how much there was m a wallet lying on the table and on being told about £15, Lambert, he alleged, had then said: "What about fixing me with a tenner?" ....."■ .-'■<. Lambert Inquires %I'tne^a stated tha.t "Lambert had fold hiTn v "that.he -jvould go up for two years dyer the N.Z. Roads; .business. Einally, stated the witness, he; had paid Lambert £.10. On the Monday, or Tuesday he had gone to the police station, where he had seen- Detectives Lambert and McWhirter. Speaking to Detective Lambert he said: "Here is £1. for the hat." Lambert, had replied: "You have to pay £1 to the station." Sissons alleged that he had then paid over £1. r Witness stated that between the time the summons was sowed upon him to appear m Court and the date of the hearing,; Lambert" visited him at his shop. . "I was alone m. the shop. He said he had to make a case of it. .'On that occasion I did not give any money to Lambert and he did not ask for any, he added. . Sissons alleged that while he was sitting m Court with his father, on the occasion of the hat theft charge, Detective Lambert came to them and said: "It is all right, Joe, I will pull Campbell's ears for you." When the case was over Lambert again approached Sissons and his father, who were standing m the passage of the Court, and this time he: said,, so Sissons alleges: - /. ,'. •.'. ■',-.,. "I have pulled .Campbell's ears for you, Joe. I have done my best for you, and I "am worse than one of the All Blacks when they are mixed up m a football match; Don't you think it is up to'you to recognise me?" Sissons said that both v he and his father had shaken , hands; with Lambert and thanked him. Sissons said that a few days after, the trial Lambert had come to his shop worrying him for money. He was given £5 m notes and asked to keep away from the shop. On another occasion lie thought he gave Lambert £o, but it might liave been £3. This was the time when Lambert mentioned about money he bad borrowed to go to Dunedih. ft was after they had returned to the shop— lie had been showing Lambert over his house —that the money was paid, Lambert having: told Sissons that he had kept his name out of the Press and had "pulled' Campbell's ears" for him. An Appointment ' Witness stated that he had given Lambert money on January 28 about the time of the Takapuna races. In March Lambert paid him another visit and asked for £10. Sissons did not pay this time, but told Lambert to keep away from the shop, to which the reply had been, so he said: "I will damn well come m the shop when I like." Sissons said that "even the boy had tumbled to the truth two or three months ago." . . An appointment was made for March 9. When they met Lambert demanded £15, stated Sissons. He did not get it. Sissons said that he went from this interview to see Johnny Cullen to get, Him to do something to prevent Lambert getting money from him. • As a. result of the visit to his .shop of Chief Detective Cummings and Sergeant Rowell, when he went across to. the city after work on Friday, March 11. he carried three one pound marked notes. He met Lambert as had been • arranged between them, and, when asked for money had handed over the three marked notes. ••-■-. Althourh he could not .say definitely how much he had given Lambert he thought it might have been £30. . Under cross-examination by Lawyer McVeagh, Sissorts admitted that on .each of the three visits he paid" to Smith he .had stated to him that he was the man .; • who had stolen the hat. • Concern fng the entries m his ledger, he did not always make these on the . same day as the alleged visits, but generally on. the following day. The witness refused to answer many questions. He admitted he had a bad memory; that he had been convicted for breaking and entering stores at

(From, "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.)

Neither the Minister for Justice, nor Commissioner Mcllveney, show the slightest intention of acquainting the public with the true facts surrounding- the dismissal of Charles Augustus Lambert from the police force. In' the following article, this paper gives the sworn evidence taken at the inquiry held m camera at police headquarters, Auckland.

Devonport and stealing goods and also on another occasion for stealing dyes. He pleaded guilty to the charges. The Witness was subjected to a very long cross-examination m which lie several times contradicted^ himself. The next witness, James Smith, grocer, of Manukau Road, Parneil, said when Sissons came to his home he said that he was the man who had stolen his hat. The hat Sissons brought with him had the inside silk lining torn out and the outside band I torn off. Witness was positive that the hat was his, though. Sissons offered to pay him for the hat then, but .he would not take anything. Later he accepted £1. He would not take the hat. Replying to a question by Superintendent Wohlmann, Smith stated that he had not tried the hat on to see if it fitted him, but it was identical m general appearance to the one he had lost. 'The next witness, Stanley Vaux Godden, blacksmith's apprentice, living at Domain Road, Devonport, stated that he had been working for Sissons and Co. for the past eight months. "I saw Detective Lambert there three or four times altogether," he said. "The *rst time I saw him was about a month before Christmas." The third time he saw him, the witness stated, was when Lambert came into the shop about three weeks after Christmas'. He saw Lambert and Sissons talking together m the back part of the shop. Sissons handed Lambert something from a pigeon-hole. "I did not sec what was handed over," he added, "but T had an idea it was money, for he always puts the

money m this pigeon-hole, and this was pay day. I heard .Sissons say to Lambert that he wished he would not come to the shop." Allen Cornelius Coleman, residing at Kiwi Road, Deyonport, also a blacksmith's apprentice, said he had worked for Sissons for eight months and had left the job on September 10. He had seen Lambert m the shop twice while he was working there. He had never seen Sissons give Lambert ''anything, though, nor had he heard any of the conversation between them. It was August when Lambert had callecL Under cross-examination this witness said that Sissons had asked him if he would know the man who was calling at the shop if. he saw him again. He had said he was not sure. Later he saw a statement m "N.Z. Truth" and knew this man. was Lambert. He was sure the man sitting m the room then (indicating Lambert) was the same rrfan he saw m the shop. Leslie Sissons' father, DavidHill Sissons, corroborated. his son's evidence about Lambert approaching his son and himself m the passage of the Magistrate's Court after the hat conviction. As far as he could remember of the conversation, Lambert had said he had done a lot for his son. He had thanked Lambert. George Andrew McWhirter, acting detective, gave evidence of the visit with Lambert to ■ Sissons' boardinghouse on July IS m connection with the theft of a hat. They both entered Sissons' room and both spoke to him about the hat. No : notes were- written down at the time. Lambert was m charge- of the inquiry, stated witness. ' Another Detective "Sissons denied stealing the hat," said Detective McWhirter, "and I then left the room and stood out m the backyard which the room looks, on to. Detective Lambert stayed m the room, and after about three or four minutes he came out. We both then left the boardinghouse. I did not see a wallet containing money on the table. A search was made only of the room that Sissons was m. He had not heard Lambert say that if the.. hat was taken back there would be no case. He could not hear any of the convf rsation . that was going- on when' he left , the room. • . Cross-examined, Detective McWhirter said he had not been aware that

I Sissons had paid for the hat, and did I not remember, him coming to the station the day after the inquiry made by Lambert and himself. He was not prepared to say that Sissons did hot see him at the station, but he did not think so. He was not present when the £1 was paid and could not agree that he had seen Sissons, .m Lambert's company at all at the station. Replying; to Superintendent Wohlmarin, the witness stated that Lambert had not told him what, had transpired between Sissons and himself after he (McWhirter). had left the room. So far as ho remembered there were some blank account forms on Sissons' table. It was usual to take a statement from a suspect m such a case (referring to the theft of the hat). He had no idea why it was' not done on this occasion. William James Campbell, probation officer at Auckland* said Sissons had made certain statements to him and he had advised him. When Lambert saw him m reference to the theft of the hat he did not try to influence him m anyway m favor of Sissons. ' -^ Nothing had been done by Lambert which a man m the course of his duty should not do. Lambert had called on him and made a verbal report m connection with Sissons. "Whenever the police come to me I always rely on them a great deal," said Mr. Campbell, "and trust the police/ I, have always found the police a great assistance. I rely on their opinion and I always * discuss cases coming before the Court. They know more about the cases than I do." Sergeant Alfred Ernest Rowell, stationed, at Deyohport, m his evidence told of the visit to Sissons' shop on Friday, March .11. with Chief Detective Gummings and of; the events that followed," 1 which led up to th'e meeting between Lambert and Sissons the same afternoon when the marked notes were handed over. When he arrived atthe police station he found the chief detective. and Lambert m the big detective room. The three of them then went to a little room opposite the chief detective's room. . . .;- - The chief detective saicfto Lambert: "The department has received a i-om-pla.iht' that you .■have born .receiving sums of-raonpy from : Leslie -; Sissons under circumstances .'.whir-h practically amount to .blackmail, ami .these arc the sum's it is. alleged' you' .Vuivc obtained/ . .'.'■--■ '■' ■ The chief detective had then read the; amounts from a. list, he held. .' He then said: "We know that you have got money from Sissons to-day. We have the numbers of the notes." No Money Found The chief detective then said: "Have you any more money on you?" to which Lambert replied that he had not, and- offered to permit a search. A search was made., No more money was found on him, stated witness. ; Lambert was then asked if he had any money m his drawer, and. replied that he had and the amount might be £2 10s., £3 JOs.; or there might be £4 10s. This money belonged to the men m the office. Chief Detective Cummings, said witness, then said: "you still say you got no money from Sissons?" Lambert replied: "Yes." ' ' . Later the chief detective and Lambert, who had been left alone at the latter's request, joined the witness m the big detective office. They all went to the drawer m Lambert's table. Lambert opened the drawer and took out three one-pound notes from it. . The chief detective then said: ''How did you come to .get this money?" Lambert, said witness, did not reply. To a further question he still made no reply, then Chief Detective Cummings said: "Look! Can't you say anything about this money? Was it a gratuity or was it a bet?" To this Lambert made reply, stated Rowell. saying: "If I say it is a bet he, will deny it" (meaning Sissons). The chief then said: "It was a bet, then, was it?" The reply was: "Yes." , Chief Detective James Cummings was the next witness. He detailed what had taken place at Sissons' shop on Friday, March 11. " He took a note of the three ; onepound notes that Sissons had m his possession. On arriving at the Ferry Wharf, Auckland, , on the Friday, March 11, he had seen Lambert and Sissons standing near the Ferry Buildings, talking. He saw Sissons take something from his pocket and hand it to Lambert. They remained talking there for three or four minutes, then both of them walked together up Queen Sti-eet. Sissons took off his hat as a signal to him (Cummings) and the pair then parted. The chief detective then sifted what had taken place at the detective offlce.Witness stated that what he said was: "Was it a gratuity for an unlawful purpose or for a bet?" In other essentials his story cor rob ox-ated that of Sergeant Rowell. Chief Detective Cummings stated that there was no official record of Sissbns having paid i£l.to , either Lambert or McWhirier or any other member of the force m con? nection with Smith's hat.

II ... ■ . ■ A '■"'•■' AUCKLAND, 1§ 11 June 16, 1927. || 11 ' " "I, Charles Lambert, challenge the Commissioner of Police, Mr. || 11 Mcllveney, to prove to the satisfaction of the public that my discharge || |l from .the Police Force was justified .and: m accordance with the^evi- || ll dence produced at the inquiry held at Police Headquarters, Auckland. §§ 11. "At the inquiry, which was held m camera, I pleaded guilty to a || II technical breach of the Police Departmental regulations m that I §§ 11 accepted a gratuity, but in-doing so it was on the advice of my legal || |l advisor and against my personal convictions or desire. .. . \\ li "Apart from the extraordinary and serious nature of the allega- \\ 11 tions levelled against me by this man Sissons-^all of winch I deny uri-V §| 11 hesitatingly— l submit that my dismissal on the grounds of having ac- §§ l| cepted a gratuity, was punishment out of all proportion to the offence. \\ il ",\ am confident that I should be vindicated m the eyes of the public 11 11 if the whole of the facts m this matter were made, known." , ,-. §| H ..A (Signed) C.A.LAMBERT. /V Jl \\ ' ("N.Z. Truth" herewith publishes a report of the proceedings at || || the inquiry, so that readers of this paper may be m full possession of l| || the facts of the case.). VA-'V H = 11l H || t | 1 1] 111 1 1, ||,| || 1111 II M 1111 M llll lill I Milt 1 11 11 Mt 1111 l 11 11 1111 11 1111 till lit 11 11 11111 111 lit tllltllllllllllllllllll Illlmilllllls I rnliiiitinniiiuiii iiimimiimiiMimMiiMiiiimiiiiiimiiraiiiimiiiiiiiuiKnmmimuiiNH

There was no record of the department having received the money.* Undei* cross-examination this witness stated that Lambert had had a clean defaulter's sheet since he entered the service. Concerning the hat episode, he said, there was nothing 1 ,- speaking generally, that came under his notice showing any. laxity on Lambert's part . as a member of the force. Lambert's Evidence Charles Augustus Lambert was then sworn. He stated that he had joined the .police force on September 1, 1909. He grave an unqualified denial to the allegations brought by, Sissons. There had not been any wallet m the room that he could see when he and Detective McWhirtcr visited Sissons about the theft of the hat. Sissons had certainly not given him £10 on that occasion. . Lambert also denied having at any time asked Sissons for money or hav-ing.-accepted;: any money from him apart from the £3 he received on March ]i. Not at any time had he told Sissons that the hat episode. -was finished with. Sissons had denied taking the hat. "The result of the inquiry and search," added witness, "was that no incriminating evidence was obtained against. Sissons. Acting Detective McWhirter said to me, as we were about to leave the house: "Tell Sissons if he knows anything about it to take the hat back, we might catch him that way." He had never asked Sissons to call at the station to see him. He had a note from Smith the following day and also a telephone conversation with him. Later Sissons called to see him at the station. He did. not receive any money from him, nor had He (Lambert) told Sissons that he wanted money. Lambert denied having seen Sis-j-ons nt Devonport between the time he first interviewed him and the hearing of tho case. He had never told Sissons that he had to make a case of "I cannot say definitely whether T called on Sissons on January- 2S. T called on him about three times at bis shop. It is untrue for him to say that he paid me £S" added Jjumbert, "on fhatSbccasion. So far as I re/nember, the only time m March I saw him was about March 1 near the Ferry' Buildings. I did not ask him for £10 or £15 then." No Demands Lambert denied that he had ever made an appointment to go .over to Sispons' shop on March 11. He had met 'him m the. street on March !>, .hut hart -not made any demand for money. Me had met Sisson.s m Quay Street. II was, then that Sis.smis had asked him to come and sec him on. Friday, March 11. Ho had asked Sissons why and had been told that he wanted Lambert to come over-and .sec 'him at. the shop. Witness j-tated I hat be did not make any arrangements to go over to the shop nor to drop Sissons a line. •He had seen Sissons on March 11 outside the Ferry Buildings. He. Lambert, was on duty at the time, and had been making inquiries about the theft of a gold watch and chain. He had eume from the Sailors' Home. Sissons had come up to him and said, "Why didn't you come over to see me to-day?" He had replied "I had no intention of going- over to see you." Sissons had then said: . "It's a pity you did not come 'over as I had some money for you." • Lambert had asked what the money was for, and to this Sissons had said: "You were pretty decent to me m Court." 1 • • , Lambert alleges that Sissons had then offered him some notes which he refused to take. He remained m conversation with Sissons for a • while and had pulled a gold locket out of his pocket and had shown it to Sissons. Finally Sissons said: "Go on, take these, I want to gel away." . • "He practically thrust the notes on to me. I did not know how many there were and 1 did not actually or adequately realise that I was committing a breach of the regulations. "I then 'had possession of the notes. Sissons then said he must get away, and I walked across the street with him still with the notes m my hand. We had only gone a few yards on the opposite footpath when 'he left me." Continuing his story Charles Lambert told substantially the same story as Chief Detective Cummings and Sergeant Rowell at; to what took place at the detective office. ' "1 remember a question being asked if the money was. for a. bet or for an unlawful purpose. 1 was' somewhat, staggered at the time and I thought the chief detective .was endeavoring to give me a lead as to what I -might have got it for. I asked '.him two or three days later if that was what he had mentioned ft for. "I told him that it was for a bet; that was not correct. I. never mentioned at any time to Sissons that he was only on probation and that he was likely to go up for two years. • "Beyond, saying', 'How do you do,' I don't recollect any conversation with Sissons' father m the Court corridor. It \vas not known to me that he hard of hearing." Lambert denied that he had tried to sway Mr. Campbell. Under- cross*- examination by Inspector Mcllveney, Lambert said that he could not give any. dates or names of people interviewed by him m the vicinity of Sissons' shop on the_ occasions ho was over m Devonport. Sissons' statement was. correct that all "his visits to the shop were after the hat case on August 19. Lambert stated that he had not asked McWhiVter to go out of the room and did not know that he had gono. The only reason he could give for Sisso7is' statements were because he had prosecuted him over the hat. Witness said that he had no recollection of McWhirter being present at the interview at the police station when Sissons saw him there. "As soon as I got into the room with Chief Detective Cummings -it looked as though a trap liad been set for me and I fell into it. It is not true that I- got the money to put on horses. I thought it/was the easiest way out of it at the time." Re-examined Lambert stated that he did not. borrow £50 to go to' the Dunedin Exhibition. "I say that it is a wicked scheme on 'Sissons' part to injure me for' having prosecuted him £or theft," concluded Lambert.