CONFIDENTIAL
PRESENCE AT THE SCENE OF A CRIME, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT ACCIDENTAL, DOES NOT OF ITSELF NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO ENCOURAGEMENT. THE FACT THAT A PERSON WAS VOLUNTARILY AND PURPOSELY PRESENT WITNESSING THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME AND OFFERRED NO OPPOSITION, THOUGH HE MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO PREVENT IT AND HAD POWER TO DO SO, OR AT LEAST EXPRESS HIS DISSENT, MIGHT IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES AFFORD EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A JURY WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT HE (UNDERLINE FOLLOWING WORD) WILFULLY ENCOURAGED. IT WOULD BE A QUESTION OF FACT FOR A JURY WHETHER HE DID SO OR NOT. HOWEVER, THERE IS HERE NO SUGGESTION THAT HUNT WILFULLY ENCOURAGED THE
CRIME AND IN FACT HE EXPRESSED REVULSION AS TO ITS EFFECTS. ALSO, HE WAS AT THAT TIME A JUNIOR (ALTHOUGH COMMISSIONED) OFFICER AND
WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT HE COULD HAVE STOPPED IT, EVEN IF HE HAD
WANTED TO. HUNT MADE THESE STATEMENTS IN THE CONTEXT OF C.I.D.
VIOLENCE. IN 1954, HE WAS A RELATIVELY JUNIOR OFFICER IN THAT BRANCH, JOINING ONLY IN NOVEMBER OF 1954, AND, IF THIS INDICATES ANYTHING, IT TENDS TO DETRACT FROM THE SUGGESTION OR INFERENCE THAT HIS PRESENCE, PER SE, CONSTITUTED ACTIVE OR POSITIVE ENCOUR- AGEMENT, OR THAT HE WAS IN ANY REAL POSITION TO PREVENT IT. THIS BEING SO, HIS NOT EXPRESSING DISSENT AT THE TIME (IF THIS IS THE CASE) AND HIS NOT DISSOCIATING HIMSELF FROM IT BY GOING AWAY COUNTS FOR VERY LITTLE, IF ANYTHING.
6. THE LEADING CASE ON THE SUBJECT IS CLARKSON 1971, W.L.R. 1482.
7. FOR YOUR INFORMATION RELEVANT PORTION OF HUNT'S EVIDENCE IN
GODBER TRIAL READS:-
** Q. WHEN YOU GAVE A TELEVISION INTERVIEW, YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT FIREWORK?
A. OH, YES.
Q. WHAT HAPPENED? TELL US ABOUT THE FIREWORK.
A. ABOUT 1954.
Q. PARDON ?
A. ABOUT 1954, I THINK.
Q. WHAT HAPPENED?
A, OH, WE WERE IN THE C.I.D. OFFICES AND PUT A FIREWORK IN A
BLOKE'S ANUS AND SET IT OFF.
Q. WERE YOU THERE ?
A. YES I WAS THERE.
Q. WHAT DID YOU DO TO STOP IT?
A. NOTHING.
2 CONFIDENTIAL
Q. DID YOU
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.