ACCESS DENIED

Waikato Times, Volume 195, Issue 22448, 8 September 1944, Page 2

ACCESS DENIED

STATEMENT TO POLICE COMPLAINT BY COUNSEL A complaint by counsel that he had been denied access to the police records to peruse his client’s voluntary statement marked the opening of a case heard in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, yesterday before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M. The complaint was made by Mr A. L. Tompkins, who appeared for one of two women charged with the theft of a wallet containing money. • Mr Tompkins said he was unable to decide whether to elect trial by jury because he had been unable to see the woman’s statement to the police. This attitude, he said, was unusual and he could not understand it. Counsel should be privileged to see surh statements before a case proceeded. Senior-bergeant A. G. McHugh, who prosecuted, said the statements of both accused were in court, and could be perused. Mr Tompkins said that was the first time he had had an opportunity to peruse them. The senior-sergeant told the Court he had earlier refused to give the statements to Mr Tompkins, and Superintendent G. B. Edwards had confirmed him in that attitude. The statements were now available. At this stage the magistrate adjourned the case, and on resuming it was announced that it had been agreed to proceed, accused to be dealt with under summary jurisdiction. Names Suppressed Mr H. J. McMullin appeared for the other woman charged. The names of the two accused were ordered to be suppressed. It was alleged that complainant, a man of about 50, and a friend accosted two young women in Victoria Street and invited them to a party. When the men adjourned to a hotel to buy liquor complainant was alleged to have left his wallet with one of the women as an earnest of good faith. After the four had taken tea they parted again, and when the men came to the appointed meeting place they could not find the women. Complainant alleged that he later traced the elder woman to her home but she denied any knowledge of the wallet. Earlier and later statements of the accused to the police were said to have been conflicting. When Mr McMullin announced his intention of putting his client in the witness box the magistrate said he could not rely on the evidence of complainant, which was flatly contradicted on some salient points by that of , his friend. The charge against both accused would be dismissed. Costs would not be allowed complainant and his friend. The alleged loss of a wallet and £ls in notes served complainant right, said the magistrate,, who added that both men should keep better company. Then he added: “That applies to the whole party.” ’