Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

'Sophisticated’ bookmaking in old bank vault

•A man who last week denied a charge of bookmaking in which he was alleged by police to have conducted the business in a former bank vault in the basement of a city building on January 8, changed hisplea *o guilty to the reduced tiiarge of acting as . a bookmaker’s agent when the case resumed in the District Court yesterday.*? * - The defendant, Peter Lloyd Machirus, aged 36. self-employed, was convicted

by Judge Fogarty and fined $l5OO. However, the Judge declined to make an order requested by police for the forfeiture of a sum of $l7BO found in the.vault during the police raid. Defence evidence had been given, in opposition to the police application, that the defendant that day had been paid $lBOO as part payment for a car he had sold. Convicting and fining the defendant yesterday, the Judge said he had a previous conviction for bookmaking in May, 1981 — just seven months before the present offence. Although the present of? fence of acting as a bookmaker’s agent was a more minor count than bookmaking, its occurrence so soon after the 1981 offence war-, ranted a heavy penalty beingimposed. The Judge told the defend-. ant that he -had. ‘been an . agent in a bookmaking operation which had been carried out with a remark-. able degree of sophistication, having been operated from a disused bank vault. It bore every sign of being quite a sophisticated operation, he said. , When the case. resumed yesterday, after.its adjournment part-heard last week, Sergeant W. J. McCormick asked for the charge to be amended to one of acting as

a bookmaker’s agent. The defendant, represented by Mr A. Hearn, Q.C., admitted this reduced charge. Prosecution evidence had beeh completed last.:week. The Court had heard that a police party- went to the basement of a. building in Lichfield Street and found the defendant in the vault, behind a metal grille door. The defendant declined to open the door, and police took about 30 minutes to break in, using a maul. While they were breaking in, detectives saw flames and smelt smoke from the room behind the grille. Police alleged that the defendant was burning papers connected with. book-, making. . A telephone was found disconnected from the wall.

Mr Hearn,’ at the completion of the prosecution case, had submitted that there was no case to answer. He said the police had not discharged the burden of proof which he contended the 1977 act . required, of establishing whether the offence \ was carrying on the business of a bookmaker, or ai bookmaker's agent. The Judge had held there was a case to answer and adjourned the hearing to yesterday for the hearing of the defence case. After the plea of guilty yesterday to the reduced charge, Mr Hearn called evi-

dence to counter the police application for forfeiture of the $178(1 . •

Nick Kourey, a fish and chip shop proprietor, gave evidence of having bought a car from the defendant, and paying a deposit of $lBOO, in $2O notes, on January 8. Cross-examined, Mr Kourey denied that he had concocted the story of the car purchase, and the receipt, to help the defendant. Mr Hearn, in final submissions, said the police had made no inquiry on the evening of the raid, where the money had come from. He said .there was no shred of evidence to connect the money with the offence. Mr Hearn submitted that the .Court would, not be justified : in ordering forfeiture of the money because if could not conclude on the evidence that the money was involved in’ the commission of an offence. • He submitted also that the evidence did not disclose that the. defendant had been an agent in a bookmaking business of any degree of magnitude.

The Judge said that on hearing the evidence he could not., be satisfied that the $l7BO belated to the business of bookmaking or the defendant’s involvement as an agent. He therefore made no order for forfeiture of this sum.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19820302.2.51.1

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, 2 March 1982, Page 7

Word count
Tapeke kupu
666

'Sophisticated’ bookmaking in old bank vault Press, 2 March 1982, Page 7

'Sophisticated’ bookmaking in old bank vault Press, 2 March 1982, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert