Last Friday in the Magistrates Court Perry Tiana, 21, construction worker pleaded guilty to using obscene language in a public place and to resisting arrest. Police evidence stated that Tiana had struggled with the arresting officers so violently that he had torn their uniforms.

Mr Trapski, SM, convicted and discharged Tiana on the charge of obscene language and fined him $75 and costs on the charge of resisting arrest.

After he had been dismissed by the court I spoke with Perry Tiana about his case. He agreed to tell me his version of the incident, an account which the overbearing and foreign formality of the courtroom effectively repressed. Perry's all too familiar predicament of being a Maori worker in a Pakeha bosses' court prevented the full facts from being presumed at his trial.

"I was standing by the pie cart waiting to order a feed. Two cops drove up and walked over, I didn't know what for. I was just minding my own business.

They looked at me for a while — I didn't know why. Then they asked me where I'd been all night, so I told them."

Perry said that he's had nothing to hide and answered the policemens' questions, but they had persisted in their interrogation. I asked him why he used "obscene language", "Well they kept on and so I got sick of it — I said 'why talk to me, what the fuck do you want?'"

"The cop said we've got you now anyway." Perry said that he believed the police had tried to actually provoke him into swearing as they seemed satisfied when he actually used the language complained of. "Then they grabbed me — I had two mates — they said go in the car Perry, don't make it worse for yourself. I was a couple of minutes talking to my mates when they started to pull me. That's when I resisted arrest, then I hit one down and the other got me round the throat and pushed me up against the car. Then they took me off."

"They tore my jacket too and they swore — yeah, the same words as me." Perry said that on the way to the station one of the policemen had expressed a wish "to have the pleasure of beating you up." The policeman said that if he was able to get him in the police station in the appropriate circumstances his prisoner would "never come out alive."

Many people complain that the streets aren't safe these days. We're repeatedly told by "Birch the Bashers" and "Tax paying Mother of Ten" that marauding' hooligans molest and attack innocent people, and that something should be done about it. Perry Tiana is one such innocent person. In his case the hooligans happened to be in uniform. And in this case also — "something should be done about it."

*******************

A young Wellington worker, Leslie Allan Pickering pleaded guilty to "stealing one newspaper to the value of 6c, the property of the Dominion Company." In mitigation Pickering said that he had been in a hurry to work and had only a fifty cent coin change on him at the time.

Mr Trapski fined Pickering $45 and $5 costs. "Stupid, wasn't it." said Trapski as the defendant left the dock. We're still wondering whether he was referring to the offense or the fine.

*******************

On Monday, Queen's Birthday weekend, two unemployed Polynesian labourers pleaded guilty before Mr Trapski SM, on a charge of unlawfully taking a Bedford van.

Police evidence stated that the two men had chanced on the vehicle as they were returning from a party in Newtown. One defendant had got into the van and steered, while his associate had pushed it a few yards down the road. The van had then been abandoned. Neither of the defendants had given any explanation to the police.

Mr Trapski was unable to decide the punishment he considered appropriate and remanded the men until July 11. He did give an indication of the seriousness of the offence when he released the prisoners on $450 bail. At the time of the trial seventeen people had been killed on the roads over the weekend, presumably unlawfully. It might be interesting to compare the penalties imposed on the unlawful takers with those who caused fatalities on the road.

*******************

No Mercy for Confused Defendant

by Keith de Ridder

There is often criticism that court procedure intimidates defendants and can not be understood by many people. It appears that Mr Patterson S.M. is making a thorough job of ensuring that this oppression continues.

A Maori defendant stands before him; The magistrate hears the charges, and the request for the defendant to be remanded until a later date. He then asks the defendant, "What do you have to say to this." The defendant looks very confused and says "Beg your pardon. Sir." It is obvious that he must have heard what the magistrate said as he is quite close to him, and I am right at the back of the Courtroom and have heard Mr Patterson quite clearly. Therefore, from his question it is obvious that the defendant has absolutely no idea of what he is being asked and what he is supposed to say.

All this delivered in thundering tones while glowering over the bench at the defendant.

The defendant looks slightly panic-striken, but manages to stammer out "No Sir". By this time it is obvious that he is very confused and doesn't really know what he has said 'No' to. But he knows that he has avoided further raging by not daring to raise any possible objections, or asking to have something he doesn't understand clarified.

One would have thought that a magistrate of Mr Patterson's experience might have been able to realise immediately that the defendant was confused or afraid. But absolutely no effort was made to try and calm the defendant and clear his confusion. It appears that Mr Patterson, in his handing out of justice' will not be inconvenienced by checking to see if he has been understood. This is a case of utter lack of interest in a defendant's predicament, and of blatant intimidation.