Former detective acquitted

Press, 13 February 1986, Page 8

Former detective acquitted

PA Auckland A former detective accused of committing perjury during a 1984 drug trial was acquitted in the High Court at Auckland yesterday. The jury deliberated for 30 minutes. The detective was embraced by members of his family and several smiling police officers shook his hand. Mr Justice Hillyer thanked the jury for its verdict and said the trial had been distressing. He continued an order for the suppression of the former detective’s name. His Honour said it was

an unusual course, but the evidence which had emerged during the trial persuaded him to do so “to avoid the possibility that this case may cause greater or more trouble than it already has.” The former detective pleaded not guilty to a charge that he knowingly made a false statement intending to mislead a jury during a drug trial in the District Court at Auckland, in October, 1984. The defendant in the trial, Shannon Agnes Rose, had pleaded not guilty to possessing cannabis for supply. She was later granted a stay of

proceedings in relation to the charge. Summing up, his Honour said that during Rose’s trial the accused said he made inquiries for the purpose of getting a customs officer, Mr Raymond Thomson, to give evidence but said he could not be found and was on leave. “The real question is did he know what he was saying was false,” said his Honour. Mr Thomson said during the trial that he had been available. His Honour said at issue were two telephone calls believed to have taken place between the

accused and Mr Thomson. In his final address, Mr John Laurenson, prosecuting, said the trial was more important than usual because a policeman was accused of committing perjury. Mr Laurenson said what had emerged during the trial was a sad and disturbing story because of the human tragedy involved and the nervous breakdown suffered by the accused through his work with the police. It was not acceptable for a police officer to give false evidence, and there could be no other answer to the matter than that.

A verdict other than guilty “would be grossly unfair to other- police officers who live by the rules,” said Mr Laurenson. In his closing address, Mr Paul Temm, Q.C., defending, said the jury had heard evidence that the accused was a man of the highest integrity. There was no doubt he was a man of excellent character. He was no perjurer. “If you. were lying awake last night worrying about this case it would not surprise me,” said Mr Temm. “If you convict this man you are doing a wrong which will never be put right.”.