SERIOUS OFFENCES

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 734, 6 August 1929, Page 11

SERIOUS OFFENCES

RETRIAL OF TAXI-DRIVER Three little girls, whose ages ranged from S to 13, were the principal witnesses against Austin Walker in the Supreme Court today. Walker, a 22-year-old taxi-driver, was on his second trial oil charges of indecent assault and indecent exposure. At his trial last week the jury | disagreed. The offences were alleged to have been committed in a garage at Avondale, where Walker kept his car, on June 9 and 10. One child of 10 described how Walker had invited her to kiss and ecu (Idle him in return for 500 cigarette cards, in the car, but she refused. A sister, aged 13, said that accused asked her how she would like to have a husband like him to kiss and cuddle her, which she regarded as a joke. She admitted saying she wanted to marry a man 10 years her senior. The mother of one of the children testified to having warned her daughter against speaking to strange men. Detective-Sergeants Martin and Bickerdyke gave evidence of the statement made by accused admitting the offences. Both police officers admitted under cross-examination by Mr. Noble that Walker was not notified when the statement was taken that it would subsequently be used in evidence against him. At that time they had not decided to arrest him. “Why did you not warn Walker before he made the statement?” Mr. Noble asked Detective Bickerdyke. “There is no law to compel me to j warn a person before lie makes a statement,” replied the detective. “What is your authority?” asked counsel. “It doesn't matter what the authority is, it is good law,” interpolated his Honour, who added that if persons who gave statements were always warned first much police work would be nullified. The detectives both definitely declared that Walker had written his statement alone. A general denial to the children’s complaints was given by accused in the box. He accused tile detectives of saying “If you will write as we I tell you it will be easier for you.” and that the police officers had used the dictation in the statement to secure a conviction against him. llis Honour: You were only too keen to sign the statement admitting guilt to got away?—Yes: I thought if I made the statement it would be the end of the case. His Honour: Do you mean to say that you were completely innocent and to get away you admitted guilt at the dictation of the police?—l think if any - other man was in my position he would ■ have done the same. ] “I can’t understand a man in his j right senses doing so,” commented his ] Honour. ! i (Proceeding.)

Late Turf