INFORMERS IN LICENSING CASES.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9127, 11 June 1895, Page 5

INFORMERS IN LICENSING CASES.

The aJjournc'J hearing of tho charge of gly grovelling was concluded at tho Invercargill Police Court on June 3rd, bnfore Jle>3rs J. Turnhull and K. F. Cuthbertson, • J.Ps. Their judgment ivue as follows : — Iα now proceeding to give judgment ia tho case llewit*', tho Beach considers that it is very important that the points of difFerenco between the two cases should be borne in mind. It is true that in both cased tho principal witnesses for the prosecution were the informers, named Wickland and Cameron, but in the case against Fraser their testimony was corroborated by that of an independen' witness; and, moreover, it was not materially tlitkeneither by cross-examination, or by the evidence for the defence. But in the case •gainst Hewitt the evidence Iβ by no means conclusive. Still, after weighing it with the greatest care and deliberation, the Bench is distinctly of opinion that the balance of testimony goes to prove that a breach of the Act was conunittod ; but in recording a conviction the Bench desires to make it clearly understood that it has nc sympathy with the methods adopted by the prosecution in order to obtain v. conviction, ft was stated in evidence that the two informers were employed by the police with th,e express object of getting suspected perfena convicted of breaches of the Licensing Act, and that any expenditure incurred by these degraded men in endeavouring to induoe others to commit breaches of the law was recouped to them. It was also argued by the prosecution that euch a course was perfectly legal. Whether that be bo or not is so part ot the duty of the Bench to decide on the preeent occasion ; but it may be remarked in pacing that such au assertion is open to question, and that whether euch a course be legal or not, it ia at any rate a distinctly immoral act to endeavour to in- ' duce anyone to commit a breach of the law—an act which, if not already punishable by statute, ought at once to be made so. Tho Bench has no hesitation in saying that such a method ol procedure is not only utterly demoralising to those immediately concerned, but thut it ia also degrading to the moral eenee of the whole community, and that it were batter far that no conviotlon for a breach of the Licensing Act ehould ever be obtained than that it ahould be secured by means such aa have been described in the evidence in the case under consideration. It is difiioult to under•tand under what circumstances, whether of choico or of compulsion, the prosecution wanted to adopt tho methods dieclosed in the evidence given, unless it be that the informers exceeded their instructions, and such does not appear. It is true that there is a section of the community (a smaji oue, it is hoped), whose moral sense has become so degraded by tbo intensity of its prejudices that those who belong to it foil to perceive the enormity of euch condaot, and are ready to approve of any means whatever being adopted ia tho .endeavour to secure a conviction under , the Licensing Act. Bub the Beach , fas no sympathy with such a morbid

>Ute of mind, and desires to place ,pn record in the strongest possible manner its unqualified disapproval of the meaua adopted to secure a conviction in this case. To employ a detective to watch and report if a breach of the law is committed ia perfectly legitimate, bat to employ men to induce others to commit a breach of the law and then to inform upon them must be repugnant to every right-minded and honourable man, and the sooner such a practice ia abandoned the better for all concerned. At the »ame timo the Bench cannot allow these feelings to blind it v.o the fact that in ite opinion a breach of the Licensing Act has own committed by Hewitt, bub in view of ,the very extraordinary circumstances disclosed by the evidence, and as a mark of the Bench's strong disapproval of the Rettio.de by which a conviction has been obtained, a fine of only £1 will be inflicted, with costs 153 3d.