382
FI/30/5.
A
B
the plaintiff himself, it did not anywhere touch the defendant directly
It is moreover chocotowy but frénained at the level. of le azsay.and inferoce.
hand souw significant that although the plaintiff has voherently proclaimed in this court his belief in the involement of the defendant in what the den. Eirplaintiff has described as a corrupt synd fate, there are indications from aid his own side that such was not always his own belief. Thus the text of Exh. P.14.. de the ndes which he made in his police notebook (Exhibit P.14), which was
bintroduced principally because he had been cross-examined upon it by Mr. Donnelly to test his credibility, nowhere reveals that in making what he 2 dlleges to have been a contemporary record of his secret thoughts eð gulberand misgivings between July and ovember 1968. had he ever noted any about or graver suspicion about the Commandant than that he, the plaintiff, was
unwilling to report to the Commandant because he felt the latter would be unsympathetic to a complaint made ́against his instructor. Likewise, Bion in the long statement made by the plaintiff to a Mr. Wilkinson of the
Anti-Corruption Branch on the 25th of November, introduced in evidence in connection with the plaintiff's suspicions as to its history and
there is still no hint Fod og custoly a statement he admits to be genuind sobolan; a sthat he had even entertained a suspicion of the Commandant's complicity
elder in these alleged malpractices.
K
M
N
he was
His
rodal fro the next limb of the plaintiff's attempted demonstration of malice sets
off from the factual alloption that although he was a man of high officer ya. calibre upon his previous record and although he consistently scored del amongst the top three in the Fortnightly and Stage Examinati uns,
O consistently marked amongst the lowest. This allegation was of course placed in the context of his charges against his class Instructor. attempt to bring this misconduct home to the defendant hinges upon what he alleges to have been a trumped up charge of cheating in the final Fortnightly Examination held on the 1st of November, 1968, in which he W was given the highest marks - C. This inquiry, he says, war in revenge
for his failure to co-operate in corruption. It is his contention that ofo:the defendant connived in this inposture and that this is established
by the fact that he, the dendant, wilfully concealed or astroyed or GW withield documents and fabricated others after the plaintiff had laid nis
complaint before the Anti-Corruption Branch on the 26th of November.
jh.D.3..
Rxh.D.4.
S
Exh.D.11,
D.13, D.14
T
& D.15.
U
་
It should be noted that this complaint was only made after the plaintiff was informed by letter from the Commissioner of Police that he was not to pass out with the other candidates all of whom had been successful, "but was to revert to his former. rank....... A
Among the documents which the plaintiff professes to regard as forgeries are the relevant page in the Register (Exhibit. D.3) in which the results or the Fortnightly Tests are recorded; secondly, the Training Record Form kept by his Instructor but tearing notes of his progrèss signed by the. defendant (Exhibit D.); and a series of interim reports upon his progress and prospects during the training course passing te tween the Class Instructor (ir. Tidey) and the defendant and the Commissioner of Pulice and dub»inating in the report by the defendant recommending that the plaintiff
Chier should not be promoted. These, are exhibits D.11, 13, 14 and 15. among the items which the plaintiff professes to believe have been made avay with by the defendant is the Cccurrence Book kept in the Pulice * Talning School at the time of the Inspectorate Couse in 1968 and the
håndwritten notes of a statement which he made,following upon his reverting to corporal, in lovember, 1968. This was a statement taken from him by an Inspector Leonard, then at General Investigation Office,
+
C
D
E
F
G
I
J
K
L
M
N
R
S
T
U
V
V
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.