George Henry BLAKE

Mr. Justice Dovey

Says Evidence

” A Lot of Poppycock ”

Royal Commissioner Mr. Justice Dovey yesterday described evidence by David Edward Studley-Ruxton on the alleged pawning of a stolen overcoat as ” a lot of poppycock. ”

His Honor warned Studley-Ruxton that if he did not behave himself he would spend the night ” in less comfortable quarters than Marton Hall. ”

Yesterday was the 39th day of the inquiry by the Royal Commission into allegations by David Edward Studley-Ruxton, 32, that he had been assaulted by police officers at Darlinghurst, police station on the night of February 25.

When the hearing resumed yesterday Mr. Justice Dovey said he had considered questions asked of Studley-Ruxton late on Wednesday. Studley-Ruxton had indicated that he had not sought protection.

His Honor said: ” It seems to me that, by his answers Studley-Ruxton has indicated that he is not willing to answer the questions.

” The answers given by him should not be admissible against him in subsequent proceedings. ”

” An Ill-Advised Attitude! “

Mr. J. W. Shand, Q.C., for

Inspector J. H. Aldridge, said it was clear that Studley-Ruxton had adopted an ” advised attitude. ”

His Honor: It is an ill advised attitude!

Mr. Shand: He adopted the

same attitude when he had counsel appearing for him. His answers have been given voluntarily, although nothing said here can bind another tribunal.

His Honor: He has been asked certain questions which if answered in a particular way, may amount to a voluntary confession of his guilt of a serious criminal offence. I should indicate that, in my view, by his demeanour and his answers, Studley-Ruxton is unwilling to answer questions.

To his Honor, Studley-Ruxton said, “I wish to answer these questions.”

His Honor: Are you adopting this attitude as a result of advice from somebody else?

Studley-Ruxton: No. It is what I have done all along.

His Honor: But you were represented earlier by counsel. Have you, at present, any solicitor or counsel advising you?

Studley-Ruxton: No. I see Mr. J. Poole and Mr. A. Larkins (barrister) occasionally but they do not advise me.

Mr. Shand: You were asked to consider why you could forget forging and uttering a cheque?

” Cannot Recall The Cheque At All “

Studley-Ruxton: I have thought about it. I cannot recall the cheque at all.

His Honor: Do you think you could have done it when you were drinking heavily?

Studley-Ruxton: It could be so. I can’t remember it.

Mr. Justice Dovey: How could you forget that you had wrongfully and illegally taken possession of a cheque which was not yours – signed it and cashed it?

Studley-Ruxton: If I had done that, I would remember it.

Do you deny that you did it? – I really do not think I did it.

Mr. Shand: Did you take a letter, containing the cheque from the letter rack at the Tiranna guest house?

Studley-Ruxton: I have no recollection of it.

You were hard up then?

Yes.

Did you pawn anything in February this year? – No.

On February 15 this year, will you deny that you pawned an article in William Street? – I don’t know if I did.

His Honor: I don’t believe you! Did you or didn’t you?

Studley-Ruxton: I will swear I did not.

Mr. Justice Dovey: A witness may adopt such an attitude which would compel the Tribunal to conclude that he is deliberately refusing to answer questions. If I draw that inference, and I am reluctant to do so, I will have to take action.

” If Did Wrong Will Admit It “

Studley-Ruxton: If I have done anything I will face up to it. If I did anything wrong I will admit it. I don’t know if I did or not.

His Honor: We want the truth.

Studley-Ruxton: I don’t know whether I did it or not.

His Honor: I don’t believe you are telling the truth when you say that you don’t know whether you pawned an article or not. You must remember.

Studley-Ruxton: I don’t think I pawned anything. I might have done; I don’t remember.

Mr. Shand: You received £2 for the article you pawned?

Studley-Ruxton: No, I don’t think so. I don’t remember pawning anything.

Showing Studley-Ruxton an overcoat, Mr. Shand asked: “Will you swear that you did not pawn this coat in February this year?”

Studley-Ruxton: I would not pawn that; I would keep it.

Studley-Ruxton: Yes.

Early this year you were engaged in every kind of dishonesty you could lay your hands to?- I must have been very busy.

That is what I am suggesting? – Well, I was on the scoot.

His Honor: You have denied that you feared other charges might be preferred against you by the police. That is the only reason this evidence has been allowed.

Studley-Ruxton: If I go to prison I don’t mind. This Commission’s inquiry is entirely different from what Mr. Shand is putting. If I committed crime I must pay for it.

Mr. Shand: There is no doubt that will be attended to !

Coat Identified By Witness

Charles Phillip Coventry, in evidence, identified an overcoat before the Commission as his property which was in his car, stolen in February.

Henry Davidson, pawn-broker, of William Street, East Sydney, said he lent £2 to a David Edwards, of Springwood Avenue, Potts Point. Edwards was a well dressed, well-spoken, gentlemanly person similar to Studley-Ruxton.

Lancelot Roy Conn, of the Ezi-way Laundry, King’s Cross, said Studley-Ruxton offered him a taxation rebate cheque in the name of another person. He cashed the cheque because he assumed it was in order.

Maxwell John Jarvis, hotel broker, of Castlereagh Street, Sydney, identified Studley-Ruxton as the man who asked him, on February 17, if he wanted to buy a car which was “hot.”

Mr. Justice Dovey, to Studley-Ruxton: Do you still say that on February 25 when you were arrested you had no belief or suspicion that you had committed other offences which might be brought home to you?

Studley-Ruxton: Yes, your Honor.

Constable George Henry Blake, attached to Central police station cells, said he was on duty on February 27 when a man named Gilbert came to see Studley-Ruxton in the cells about bail. Gilbert did not ask Studley-Ruxton anything about his injuries.

As they left the cell after seeing Studley-Ruxton Gilbert said to him, “I don’t know whether I should go bail for him or not. He is not a bad chap. He used to work for me, but I don’t know whether I can trust him.”

The hearing will be resumed at 10.15 a.m. on Monday.

YESTERDAY’S COURTS

“COLORED” EVIDENCE

Judge Nield in Quarter Sessions Appeals yesterday called police evidence in a drunken driving charge ” highly colored. ”

He rebuked three policemen for smiling as they left the court when the case ended.

Judge Nield upheld an appeal by Ronald Charles Hobson, 36, engineer, of Minnebah Road, Northbridge, against his conviction and fine on a change of having driven under the influence of liquor.

He set aside the conviction and fine.

Mr. H . Harris, S.M., convicted Hobson on April 2 in Central Court and fined him £50.

Sergeant William Claude Gidders, Sergeant Raymond William McLean, and Constable George Henry Blake gave evidence, in the appeal.

Missing witness

Sergeant Gidders said that on November 24 last Hobson’s car struck a rockery in Strathallen Avenue, Northbridge, careered across the road, and demolished a telephone booth.

When police went to Hobson’s home soon afterwards, Hobson came to the door, leaned against the wall, and munched a raw onion, said Gidders.

Police accused him of eating the onion to disguise his breath, the sergeant added.

Judge Nield said the practice was to put all available evidence before the tribunal, but if for some reason the Crown did not propose to call a witness who might be able to give material evidence, it should place the defence in the position of being able to do so.

He said that in the present case the police had obtained from a person a statement which might have been material in assisting the tribunal reach a decision. The police had not produced the statement, called the person as a witness, or made his name and address available to the defence. “That, to my mind, clouds the whole case with suspicion,” he said.

“The case for the prosecution presented for the magistrate and repeated here is so highly colored that the suspicion is not removed.”

Judge Nield added that two witnesses who gave the starting and finishing point of Hobson’s driving on November 24 — which he said gave the complete answer to the charge — had not been cross-examined about the “highly colored evidence” by the three police that Hobson had been drunk at the time.

[ Yesterday Hobson said that on November 24 he had driven from Alexandria to Northbridge, through the city, during peak-hour traffic. ]

As the police were leaving the court, Judge Nield said: “Would you police refrain from those smiles and comport yourselves properly and decently?”