X.
PL/30/8.
B
C
D
E
F
G
Eth.D.3.
H
W
I.
J
K
L
M
N
0
Exh.D.11,
D.13 D.14.
pExh.D.11A
& D.113.
QExh.D.13Ä
R
& D.133.
sExh.D.4.
T
U
**
385
initial the particular column in witness of having done so. It is a peculiarity of this particular complaint of the plaintiff - that despite the fact that the plaintiff suggests that the true register is an entirely different book, he nevertheless conceded that the several handwritten notes recorded at the bottom of the Edge/tetspeeds register (D.3) might be genuine, but he was convinced that the marks. which appear at the top of that page had be en filled up on some dates subsequent to those notes and he was satisfied that the defendant must have had a hand in this deception. As to the training record kept by his Instructor and which shows the various assessment markings over the whole
·length of the course and which he holds also to be a fake designed to reflect the forgeris in Ehibit D.3, he sought to show that it contained entries which were patently false. Thus, he is show as receiving assessment marks for the 24th and 25th weeks of the course at a time when he says he had already left the Police Training School. But, if the Fortnightly Test bugan on the 15th of June as D.3.seems to show, and as I understand it is not disputed, then the last test took place on the 1st of November, that is, at the end of the 22nd week. He left the Folice Training School on the 21st of November so that he would still have been there at the end of the 25th week and he could indeed have engaged in the practical work for which he had been marked. it is true, however, that he has received an assessment mark (2 out of 5) for the item termed 'Discussions, ability in' in the 'box', allocated to that item for the 25th week when he was no longer at the Police Training School. Mr. Tidey conceded that that was a mistake in marking and he explained that it was his habit to mark these many boxes upon the page from time to time from his memory of the performance of the particular student over the previous period and not invariably to enter each assessment mark on the day of his assessrunt. Apart from the fact that that appears to be a perfectly rational explanation, I am satisfied at all events that this one tiny devail is patently inadequate to impugn the authenticity of a docure nt which in other respects squares perfectly with the details entered in
The alleged forgery of the iterin confidential reports concerning the plaintiff (D.11, 13 and 14) is similarly based upon bare assertion coupled with certain criticisms of a factual nature relating to their contents. The plaintiff says that Mr. Tidey's report to the de fan dant and the deferant's consequential report to the Commissioner (respectively D.1 of the 1st of August and D.11B of the 3rd of August) are false because they support the idea that his class rating is poor cn the academic side whereas he knows that in fact he came high in the results on each occasion and this was of course known to Mr. Tidey and inferentially to the defendant. D.134 and .133 of the 12th of September, 1968 are false, the plaintiff says, because in addition to shoving or supporting bogus results, the statement is made in D.113 that there had been no individual practical tests on which to assess him in the period covered by the report (that is the 4th to the 6th Fortnightly Tests), whosas Exhibit D. (the Training Record) shows that he was receiving assessment marks for this period. That is perfectly true, but Mr. Tidor pointed out that the reform ce in his report was to individual tests and there are a variety of these listed in D. separately from the general practical work which is an item on its own and for these other individual items the plaintiff had received no assessment marks in the perica. The plaintiff also suspects the authenticity of this document because it is written on a plain sheet of paper stamped 'Confidential' and not on an official
M
N
P
R
S
T
U
S.C. 224
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.