A
B
883
PI/30/6.
E
F.
G
H
K
L
M
N
R
Dre
on the 16th of December, 1968. The only interest the plaintiff professes to have in this document is that he says that another document purporting. to be a type-script copy of that note which had been shown to him' (and which was, indeed, again shown to him in the course of this trial) is not. a true record of what he said to Mr. Leonard. There is evidence in the form of a memorandum fros Mr. Leonard to the Commissioner of Police, dated the 11th of December, 1969, stating that he, Mr. Leonard, be lives he inadvertently tore up the original of the plaintiff's statement. Mr Leonard did not give evider、e and it would seem that he is no longer in the Force, but the plaintiff appears to believe that since, according to hig the proffered copy is not a true copy, the defendant must have had a -hand in making away with the original. To account for this belief,
unsupported as it is by anything in, the nature of direct evidence, we must reach out to inspect yet another of the plaintiff's strongly held suspicions. (
It is his stated view that the defendant contrived to get himself posted ...to Folice Headquarters in 1969 with a view to putting himself in a position to receive any further correspondence, or deal with any further action, arising from the plaintiff's complaint over the cause of his revasion and his effots to get a hearing from the Commissioner of Police and later from the Colonial Secretary. This suspicion is fed by the fact that at kadquarters the defendant was working directly under Mr. Grace, then. A.C.P./Establishment, a man who, like the defendant, is of Irish nationality, and, who, on a former occasion, had expressed an adverse opinion of the plaintiff's quality and character as a police officer. The exiguous nature of the materials on which these suspicious rest may Fall best be illustrated by reference to two matters concerning which it may
du be said that there is some external evidence relevant to test their
quality. Thus, the strongest point the plaintiff cadeavoureu to make concerning the alleged disappearance of the Occurrence Book of the Police Training School went as follows: he had, he said, made entries in that book of some note or ndes relacing to his complaints of corruption and he had also underlined certain entries concerning two colleagues who had been involved in incidents at the Police Training School. The importance of the latter entries was that they would illustrate te that these incidents were grave enough to be reported and yet the two Proffies concemed were treated with a leniency which was in stark contrast to the strong action taken in his regard in respect of suspected cheating. That, however, is by the way. The main point he was making was that the Comandant had been requested by the Deputy Commissioner Mr. Wright-Nooth. to preserve coxtlin Occurrence Books as a result of an interview with the
· plaintiff in 1969. Mr. Wright-iooth did give evidence to that effect but said he thought the instruction must have been given over the telephone and he could not remember whether it was to the plaintiff or to somebody clse that he had spoken. It was only at that point
+
S
MR. DOMANILY:
COURT: Sorry.
T
U
My Lord did say that it was the plaintiff whom he had spoken to.
The defendant.. Sorry. Thank you..
·
The defendant or somebody else to whom he had spoken. It was only at that point in his evidence that it was drawn to the court's attention that at the date of bir. Wright-footh's instruction (the 26th of February, 1970), the defedant had already been at Folice Headquarters for some consider able
C
D
E
F
G
H
K
L
M
N
P
Q
R
S
Τ
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.