No Evidence To Show Police Were Brutal, Counsel Says

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31118, 22 July 1966, Page 3

No Evidence To Show Police Were Brutal, Counsel Says

(New Zealand Press Association? AUCKLAND, July 21. No evidence had been called to show th at police had used excessive force in removing student demonstrators from the political studies building at Auckland University on May 31, Mr G. A. Dallow, counsel for the Police Department, said today at the Commission of Inquiry into security incidents at Auckland University.

Counsel for parties involved in the demonstrations against the security officer, Mr David Godfrey, and in the events leading up to his expulsion from classes were winding up their cases at the end of the fourth day of the hearing before the Commissioner, Sir Douglas Hutchison.

Final addresses by counsel representing the university ahd the Security Service and the counsel assisting the Commission will be heard tomorrow.

“No student has come forward and complained about maltreatment by police,” said Mr Dallow after two police witnesses had given evidence to the Commission. ‘The students must either consider that any force used on them was reasonable in the circumstances or that any force used was too trivial to complain about.” One of the purposes of the inquiry was to give students the opportunity to come forward and voice accusations.

That they had not indicated that there could not be serious allegations against the police. The evidence of the constables was a satisfactory explanation of incidents when the demonstration took place and when the police were called to evict students who were disturbing a lecture. ‘No-one Struck’ The police had a duty to prevent a breach of the peace or a continuance of it. The students who were told to leave could have been arrested for resisting the police, besetting or trespassing. “T.e removal of the students did not exceed police powers under the Crimes act,” said Mr Dallow. “No-one was struck or done any bodily harm. The use of force was necessary but was not used in excess.” There was no evidence of injuries, ripped clothing or damage. “There Is no suggestion of the use of batons. The constables called to the disturbance dealt with it reasonably

within the law,” Mr Dallow said. ' Constable Charles Raymond l Baeyertz said he received a t radio call to go to the poll- 1 tical studies department at < Auckland University about j 6.30 p.m. on May 31. A few students were out- , side the building and inside ‘ about 40 students were on the J stairs and on the top landing, j The stairs were covered with students and witness had difficulty getting up the stairs. ! The students were not say- 1 ing much—just making a few 1 calls and talking among themselves.

Witness asked Mr Mandle, the lecturer, whether he wanted the students removed.

Cried Down

“Mr Mandle answered, ‘yes.’ They have no right to be here. They are trespassing. I want the police to remove them,' ” said witness. He asked them to leave but was cried down. With another constable he began to remove the students. Some left but others had to be lifted. About 15 or 20 were cleared from the stairs. Constable Davidson was having trouble with one student who was lying across the stairs with his legs locked around the bannister posts.

Witness took his feet and Constable Davidson his shoulders and they carried him downstairs. The student still refused to leave the building. Pushed Student Witness pulled him to his feet and the student leaned on him. “1 pushed him up and then moved away,” said witness. “He fell forward and made no effort to stop himself. I turned around and saw him on his back with his hands behind his head. He was grinning.”

About 15 to 20 students were still left in the building but on Mr Mandie’s suggestion, the police took no fur- 1 ther action until Professor Chapman arrived about 10 minutes later. A sergeant and four constables also arrived. Professor Chapman spoke to the students and a few minutes later the students left. To Mr Leary witness said he could not remember the students saying anything about academic freedom. Carrying Placards Witness realised what the demonstration was about as some students were carrying placards. Witness said he remembered Mr Wood, the Students’ Association president, appearing out of the crowd and saying that he had never seen such treatment of students by police before. Witness denied replying, “Well, you have now, mate.” After the students trooped out of the building, he followed with Mr Mandle and members of the class. He escorted the class and Mr Godfrey through the crowd. Constable Walter William Davidson said he tried to carry a 6ft lin student down the stairs but could not get the student round the landing. Constable Baeyertz came to his aid to carry the student down the stairs. He saw Constable Baeyertz stand the student up and walk away and the student fell on the concrete. He escorted through the crowd a girl student who wanted to catch a bus. To Mr Leary, witness said he took another student down the stairs by an armlock with one hand on his shoulder. “Freedom Misused” In his final address Mr Ryan said Mr Mandle wished to submit that he was an advocate of the principle of academic freedom but he felt that it had been misused. “It was a hard decision for

him to make to send for the force of law and order,” said Mr Ryan. “He feels that this decision at that particular time was the proper one.” Privileged “A certain person has said outside this inquiry on a privileged occasion that indeed there was a conspiracy to get Mr Godfrey out of the university and one to which Dr. Butterworth and Professor Chapman were parties,” said Mr Dugdale. Obviously there was no evidence of anything of the sort before the Commission, counsel said. . He asked that the Commission make a specific finding in his report that there was no such conspiracy. On the matter of the door he asked again for a specific finding of his client’s point, for the same reasons. “In my submission a very important point has been established by the setting up of this inquiry,” said Mr .Chilwell.

“The point is this: the very definite contrast between the ease with which damaging and untrue statements were made about Professor Chapman in the House of Parliament last month and the com-

plete absence of any evidence whatever to support these statements at this inquiry.

No Conspiracy

“In view of the allegations that were made I request your Honour to find specifically that Professor Chapman’s conduct throughout the whole of this affair was of the highest order,” he said. “I also ask you emphatically to find that he neither conspired against Mr Godfrey nor victimised him in any way.” On the contrary, said Mr Chilwell in his submission, Professor Chapman went about his duties with a due regard for the sensitivity of Mr Godfrey’s position, that of the university, that of the students, and his position as a teacher, motivated by his desire to find a proper and just solution to what he regarded as an educational problem. There was no real suggestion that the students intended Godfrey any personal violence, Mr Leary said. Mr Leary said he accepted without reservation that there was reason for calling the police. But there were peaceful alternatives. There could have been a peaceful picket marching along as Godfrey left. Unfortunately, locking the

door acted as “a sort of challenge” to the students. The Students’ Association did not object to an outside security officer making inquiries on the campus because this was a risk every citizen was subject to.

“But the students do say it is objectionable for security officers to be enrolled as students at universities because the principle of academic freedom tends to be infringed,” he said. “We don’t attempt to deny any person, including prospective applicants for the Security Service the right to full and free education. “But we do submit that a person who intends at some stage to apply for a position with the Security Service should complete his academic course before entering the service.”

“Not Ruined”

Mr Leary said he did not intend to emphasise the handling of the students by the police. The student body was anxious to maintain friendly relations with the police and although it thought two students were ’ manhandled unnecessarily that was not a major matter for the inquiry.

Mr Leary said it was not correct to.say that Mr Godfrey’s career was ruined. His career as a security agent on the campus was ruined when he became known. But this was an occupational hazard.

Mr Leary asked the Commission to find some way of seeing that the rightful practice of security did not bring about any disruption on the campus.

Any university worthy of the name would resolutely defend any threat to its academic freedom, said Mr Wallace.

The Insensitivity of the Security Service in this cardinal principle was the cause of the trouble. “One of the values of this commission is to ensure that it can be made clear What our society can and cannot tolerate as regards the activities of the Security Service,” said Mr Wallace.

He hoped nothing would be done to deny any member of the service a university education.