‘No cover-up’ in attempt to kill the Queen in Dunedin
Atop-brass review of a Dunedin teenager’s 1981 assassination attempt on Queen Elizabeth II has concluded there is no evidence of a police cover-up.
Detective Inspector Steve Wood’s review of the police file on the event – prompted by Stuff’s The Snowman and the Queen series about Christopher John Lewis – fingers a former detective ‘‘intent on discrediting former colleagues’’ as the source of the claims.
That former detective, Tom Lewis, remains unrepentant, and called the review a ‘‘joke’’. He questioned why police did not interview him instead opting to ‘‘attack the messenger’’.
‘‘They can’t discredit you without interviewing you.’’
Police launched the review because of revelations in declassified New Zealand Secret Intelligence Service (NZSIS) documents, covered in the Stuff series.
Those documents included new information suggesting the bullet fired across the Otago Museum Reserve by 17-year-old Christopher Lewis on the afternoon of October 14, 1981, may have passed over the crowd, not on the road as police initially claimed, and that media were initially misled over the case.
‘‘Current police investigations into the shots have been conducted discreetly and most media representatives probably have the impression that the noise was conducted by fireworks of some description,’’ the file said.
‘‘There is a worry, however, that in the court the press may make the connection between the date of the offence and the Queen’s visit.’’
Police commissioner Mike Bush asked for a re-examination of the relevant case file, which detail interviews with Lewis after he hid in a deserted toilet cubicle on the fifth floor of a building overlooking the Royal motorcade before firing a shot.
Twelve people in the crowd reported hearing a loud bang or bangs. The review noted police were not aware of Lewis’s intentions concerning the Queen’s Dunedin visit until nine days later. While in custody over a bank robbery he made admissions to police about the incident, prompting an investigation.
He led police to the rifle, still in the Adams building. While the police file shows officers considered charging him with treason, he was charged only with discharging a weapon.
Wood’s review covered the police file (though he noted there was no way of confirming he had the entire file), NZSIS media releases and other related inquiries. Wood took no additional statements and did not read detective sergeant-turned-whistleblower Tom Lewis’ book about the assassination attempt and alleged cover-up.
‘‘The media stories that are critical of the investigation can almost without exception be traced back to comments made by Mr Tom Lewis,’’ the 15-page review concludes.
In particular the review zeroes in on a claim by the former police officer that Christopher Lewis tried to shoot the Queen in the Octagon, before resorting to ‘‘plan B’’ when that failed.
Claims the teenage gunman was within 30 to 50 metres of the Queen ‘‘appear to be totally unfounded’’ and ‘‘at odds with the evidence contained in the file’’, Wood concluded.
‘‘It would appear he [Tom Lewis] has been intent on discrediting former colleagues.’’
Tom Lewis responds
Tom Lewis, now living in Australia, maintains he was involved in interviewing Christopher Lewis, but that file was destroyed and he was taken off the case.
The former officer’s allegations of a cover-up were supported, in part, by others. These included a friend, a lawyer and a former partner of Christopher Lewis’s and a journalist.
Tom Lewis said too many people connected with the case had since come out of the woodwork and ‘‘they bloody know they covered it up’’.
He urged former police with knowledge of the incident to speak on the record.
Lewis denied he made details up to sell a book, as he first went public well before it was written.
Conclusions
NZSIS did not have full access to the police records concerning Christopher Lewis and police had no evidence to support the intelligence agency’s claim that police ballistic tests revealed the bullet’s trajectory passed high above the crowd.
Police distanced themselves from that NZSIS report, with Wood noting police issued two media releases days after saying officers were investigating the sound of a shot fired during the royal visit. One said: ‘‘Although we are investigating an incident involving a firearm, we are quite satisfied that a shot was not fired at the Queen.’’
That satisfaction appears to be based on the slim likelihood of Lewis being able to fire a shot at the monarch from his spot in the Adams building – rather than his intent.
Wood said: ‘‘There is no evidence of any political interference, or of a coverup. In fact the matter was made public at a point earlier that one might expect.’’
The police review
An internal report from November 4, 1981 requested an investigation into the incident, including an examination of the car used by the Royal couple during their Dunedin visit.
While there were records of updates given to the police commissioner, there was no record of whether he received the full file, Wood wrote.
The case was reviewed in 1987 after international media attention following the publication of Tom Lewis’s book Cover-ups and Cop-outs.
A police report after that also found no evidence of a cover-up.
That review focused on the allegation that Lewis was under-charged ‘‘because of political pressure’’.
Tom Lewis suggested he should have been charged with treason.
Detective Inspector Wood, as part of his review, noted some of the job sheets had listed ‘‘attempted treason’’ as a possible charge, ‘‘so it was certainly under consideration’’.
However, the nature of those charges was outside the scope of his review, he wrote.
Evidence of a ‘cover-up’
The latest report includes a reference not disclosed to Stuff when part of the file was released, concerning an armed offenders’ squad officer travelling in the Royal procession, who said: ‘‘The sound was a sharp crack, which in my opinion was louder than a .22, similar to that of a .223 ...
‘‘I do not know the exact position of the Queen at the time, as she was out of sight, but she would have been about to, if she hadn’t already done so, alight from her vehicle.’’
The review showed there were reports of gunshots and loud bangs at the time of the Queen’s visit, but no record to show police were suspicious of Christopher Lewis’s involvement at that time.
That link was revealed only a week later on October 23, 1981, when he was interviewed by police over the Andersons Bay Post Office robbery. When asked about an outstanding .22 he revealed it was at the Adams Building. Police later recovered the gun. ‘‘From this point an investigation was mounted into his actions during the Queen’s visit,’’ the review noted.
That included a telephone message record between the commissioner and the chief superintendent – also not disclosed as part of the file release – that confirmed ‘‘it has now been established that this shot was fired from the 5th floor of the old medical building by one of the offenders we have apprehended, a boy called Lewis, aged 17’’.
Wood said this was nine days after the Queen’s visit and ‘‘you would not expect police investigators to alert the media’’, as that may have prejudiced the investigation.
Original reports of gunshots being heard were not fully investigated at the time, with noise explanations including a sign falling over, fireworks and workmen loading barricades onto a truck.
In the review police revealed a dozen people were identified as hearing gunshots.
On October 28, 1981 police issued a press release about the incident: ‘‘As the Queen alighted from her vehicle outside the museum, a number of people, including police members, heard what appeared to be the sound of a shot.
‘‘Although we are investigating an incident involving a firearm, we are quite satisfied that a shot was not fired at the Queen.’’
The review also discloses that Interpol was notified about the incident by the commissioner and claimed the teenage shooter fired only into the road.
‘‘Investigators are satisfied Lewis did not fire a shot at her majesty . . . . ’’
On October 28, 1981 police and scientists conducted fire tests with the weapon, firing three blank shots with the muzzle pointing out of the window, as police waited outside to hear the shots. Another test involved firing the weapon at a distance of 25m.
It was also concluded the rear sight of the BSA Sportsman Five rifle was not fitted correctly, thus it would ‘‘be difficult to attain a high degree of accuracy over a distance much greater than this’’.
The review found no reference to the NZSIS declassified revelations that ‘‘tests reveal the shot was fired over the crowd’’.
The review discredited information from Tom Lewis that Christopher Lewis hid in an alcove at the Octagon and took aim at the Queen, who was less than 20m away.