Redacted
under FOI exemption
40(2)
5) L/2274/74
A child was bitten by a dog in her fish stall. She says the father of the child is a triad member and a friend of police. The police wanted to arrest her and when she said the dog was not hers, they began to tear apart her fish stall because they discovered that her licence had expired a few days earlier. USD said the licence could have been renewed and summonses need not have been issued. She was charged with illegal hawking (when in fact she has a proper rented stall) and later with keeping a dog without a licence. She insists she had no dog. All her goods were confiscated. Not knowing the law, she could not explain to the Magistrate that she was not an illegal food-for-man hawker as defined for mandatory confiscation.
Eventually the magistrate returned her paraphernalia but not the fish worth thousands of dollars.
On the dog charge, after many hearings. the magistrate ruled that she had no case to answer.
Much time and money were spent on the case. We got her a lawyer from the University. She is still being troubled with summonses for paltry matters for which notices would do (e.g. re getting inoculations). She now pleads to be given a stall in another area to get away from persecution.
6) L/2404/77
He has complained of frame-ups in the past and has been helped. This time he had long lists of charges of blackmail and extortion, and was questioned by ICAC which seemed to think he must be collecting for police. After almost a year of worry, his case was heard in June, 1978 and he was acquitted on all charges.
7) L/105/78
He admits to many past charges which were correct, as he has a very poor social background. This time he denied the charge of loitering with intent. A lawyer from Hastings was provided by us and he was acquitted.
8) L/481/70
9)
Charged with traid membership. Has no previous record. He pleaded not guilty. We employed Rooney of Hastings. Judge Chism ruled: "The confession statement made by the Defendant was not admitted into evidence. There being no other evidence against him, the charge was dismissed." (Jan. 25th, 1978)
During a raid on their stalls, they were accused of assaulting police. Hawkers demanded their release at the police station, and give evidence that it was the police who used force. We got a lawyer through the Law Dept. of the University. They were acquitted.
10) L/990/78
was charged with possession of 23" knife. He had once been in a Remand Home for fighting (1958). In 1977 he was found in possession of small quantity of drugs, for his own use and thereafter his home was frequently searched. When they found nothing, the police entered an empty room next door, produced a long knife, and accused
of putting it there.
We complained to the Attorney-General and the case was dropped. Police then warned him that they would catch him again in future.
11) L/714/78
20 years ago
was on a charge of robbery, which he says was false. Recently he was arrested and charged with an offence in 1959, and a recent charge of "lotering with intent to commit an arrestable offence" and possessing a watch (his own) and a knife (which is 1 inch long used for cutting nails)
We employed Rooney from Hastings and the charges were all dismissed.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.