WAIHINE MAIL ROBBERY

Hokitika Guardian, 9 May 1929, Page 3

WAIHINE MAIL ROBBERY

POLICE ACCUSED OF FORCING A STATEMENT.

;.By Telegraph, Per Press Association.J

WELLINGTON, May 8.

The trial m iGuuud and George Wilfred Ryan, in connection with tne alleged tneft from postal packets on the Wall 1 ue, of sums amounting to £ii 1 5s od, ;u.,0 a gold watch, toun‘■ain pen and ring, bringing the total to £lB4 5s od, commenced at the Supreme Court to-day. ,

In the witness oox, Bovan alleged Jiat the police has"T,retA'Yi statement from him, alter be had been three and a-hair hours in the "station. They told him that if lie would say the Ryans were in the affair, they would see he got probation. He had actually received a sentence of two years at Borstal. Gordon bad gone to the mail bold, that being the arrangement between witness and Gordon.

Witnss also denied having told the detectives that Richard Ryan and Gordon had made arrangements for the theft of the mail. During the questioning of the witness by the Crown Prosecutor, counsel took objection to witness not having been declared hostile, but His rionour said Mr Macassey was taking Jie right course, haring regard to the serious statement Bevan had made. Bevan, alter denying that he had made various statements credited to Him, went on to assert that the statement was a “frame-up” by the police. Witness alleged that the detective, had put in a loc that he had not said. His Honour: How could a statement like that he invented?” Witness: “It eou.d not have been invented by me, because I would not hare the brains.” “Why did you say before you were asked a single question, that you had nothing to say ?” “Because J. did not want to say anything.” “i suppose, to be quite honest, you don’t want to give evidence against the two accused?” “No.” “I can quite understand that! That is one thing. It is quite a different king, you know, to go into the box ancl say ,because you don’t want to give evidence against them, that the police officers have been guilty of what you are now suggesting.” “That is why I don’t want to give evidence at all—because the statements are all false.” “D j you really mean that, or is it not a iact that you don't want to give evidence against men who are in a way, your mates?” “They are not mates of mine. I Just had an introduction to* them. That’s all.” W itness admitted buying a pair of rubber gloves, in company with G. Ryan, after■ he knew of plans for the robbery, but lie 'asserted that they were for motor work. f \ r EI?PICT OF NOT GUILTY. JUDGE’S ADVICE TO POLICE. In the 'Supreme Court to-day, before the Chief Justice, Mr Myers, the fury, after fifteen minutes’ retirement, returned a verdict of not guilty in, the case where Richard Ryan aup George Wilfred Ryan were joint.\ charged that on the night of February 9th. last in company with Thomas''G rdon find Arthur Henry Wiliiam Revan, Jiey did steal from the Waliinc, money and valuables of a total value of £lB5 ss. Serious allegations against the police were made by Bevan, called by the Crown as witnes|s. Bevan said his statement to the. police implicating the Ryans was not true. “I never discussed with the Ryans,” he said, “the natter of the theft. They (the police) said if J said the R.vans were in it. I wou.d got off with probation. Now I have got two years.” In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the Judge declared the witness hostile. Under cross-examination, Bevan admitted lie considered the matter a “frame-up” by the police. Continuing, witness said he and Gordon arranged the robbery, and that the Ryans had nothing to do with it. Summing up, the Chief Justice said the case was, and must lie in the circumstances, not that the'Ryans went down into the hold, hut that they were parties to the offence, the substance of which was committed by Gordon or by Gordon and Bevan. In the circumstances, the jury could take no notice whatever of the statement of Levan, and His Honor suggested there was not sufficient evidence to make it safe to convict the two accused. '1 he case was really a weak one on the evidence. Dealing with the allegations against the detectives, who h, if true, said the Judge, would plainly indicate those detectives were not fit members of the police force (and lie did not believe for one moment the a legations wore true), he said: “Such allegations show the risk the police themselves sometimes take in the execution of their duty, and it shows the whole matter of taking statements from accused persons and others requires some considerntoin, not only for the persons from whom the statements were taken, but for the police officers themselves.” He added : f ‘l think it only fair to the police officers that these remarks should ho made.” The verdict was as above stated, an j acquittal. The two brothers are awaiting trial in another case. Bail was allowed Richard Ryan in the sum of £2OO with j two sureties of £2OO, j