Cop accused of manslaughter denies assault

A police officer today denied that he assaulted a man who died after running in front of a street-cleaning truck.

And two fellow officers who claimed that he had assaulted the victim George Tipene Harris in the back of a police car were lying, Clinton Lyall Hill told the jury in the High Court in Auckland.

Hill, 34, has pleaded not guilty to the manslaughter of Mr Harris on October 3, 2004.

Hill, who is suspended from duty, also faces two further charges of assault and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The Crown alleges Mr Harris was running away from Hill after being assaulted in the back of a police car. Hill later lied to cover up the assault.

The defence opened this morning, with the sole witness being Hill.

He said he was off duty when he encountered Mr Harris in the early hours of the morning on a Manukau street. He said Mr Harris tried to grab his mobile phone and he arrested him.

Two police officers claimed that Hill assaulted Mr Harris in the back of the police car before he escaped and was run over by the passing street cleaning truck, later dying from his injuries.

But Hill told the jury the officers had lied and he never assaulted Mr Harris.

Hill denied a suggestion from prosecutor Stuart Grieve QC that he assaulted Mr Harris to teach him a lesson.

Mr Grieve asked: "Were your faculties impaired"

"No, I believe I was able to carry out my duties," Hill responded.

"Notwithstanding you were to a degree intoxicated," Mr Grieve said.

"Yes," Hill replied.

"Do you accept when you're chasing someone on foot, it would be dangerous to chase them into a situation where there may be oncoming traffic?" Mr Grieve asked Hill.

"Yes I do," he replied.

Mr Grieve asked Hill if he was annoyed after Mr Harris ripped his jacket.

"I wasn't angry. I was more frustrated that my jacket was ripped," Hill said.

Hill's lawyer John Haigh QC said the alleged assault in the back of the patrol car never took place, therefore when George Harris ran off he was not fleeing because he feared violence.

"Accidents happen, tragic accidents like this which don't have a criminal causation, a criminal culpability," he said.

He said unless the Crown could prove Mr Harris was running away in fear of violence from Hill, the charge of manslaughter must fail.

Hill had always been consistent in what he has said about the incident and had not lied, Mr Haigh said.

In contrast, Mr Haigh said there were "inconsistencies of a serious nature in the crown case".

"They were of very real importance."

The trial continues tomorrow.

- NZPA