"SIGN NOTHING."

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18670, 20 April 1926, Page 6

"SIGN NOTHING."

CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTING THE POLICE. J.P. AS DEFENDANT. (PEZ3S usocunox txlio&uu.) NAPIER, April 19. A somewhat unusual case was hoard at the Police Court to-day, when Arthur Cochrane Bennett, Justice of the Peace, appeared befor \Fr R. W. Dyer, S.M., charged with wilfully obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. The facts as disclosed by police evidence were that on the night of April 7th, there was a fatal accident on the Taradale road, when a car driven by T. C. Lowry ran down a man and killed him. After taking the body to the morgue, Lowry went to the Police Station to report the matter, and Constable Murray was instructed to take a statement as to the facts of the case. Lowry was invited to make a statement, .and he was taken into the watchhouse behind the counter and he commenced to make a statement. Defendant then entered and went behind the counter, behind which no one was allowed without permission, and said: "tarn sorry to hear ahkrat this, Tom. Making a statement, are you ? My advice to you is to make no statement and to sign nothing." Defendant then went to read the statement, but the constable stopped him, covering the paper, and asking the defendant who he was. Bennett replied that he was Lowry's attorney. The constable replied: "1 don't care who you are. You have no right here." Defendant persisted in staying, but ultimately left, several times advising Lowry to make no statement to the police and to sign nothing. When Bennett left, Lowry said that m view of the instructions of his attorney he could not make a statement and would not sign any statement. • It transpired during the evidence for the defence that Bennett actually was Lowry's attorney, and that Lowry had requested him by telephone to call at the police station.

No Proof of Wrongful Intent. In regard to the defendant going behind the counter, his Worship said that people doing this without invitation might be rude, but in this case they were not trying a case of good or bad manners, but a case of obstruction. In thiß regard the authorities held that in order for a case to be established there must be evidence of intent. The man must have intended to obstruct. He did not think it was the intention of the defendant to obstruct the police. The defendant went to the station at the request of Lowry, and merely intended giving him advice as his attorney. As it was a legal holiday at the time, Lowry could not get his solicitor, so he got his attorney. The advice given may have been wrong 1 or improper advice, but the question was: Why was it given? His Worship thought it was not given for the purpose of obstructing the police, but to keep Lowry out of trouble by not making any admission that might lead to a criminal prosecution. Defendant thought Lowry too distressed to make a statement, and advised him against doing so, to help him, but not with the intention of obstructing the police. The information would be dismissed.

Mr Scannell (counsel for the defendant) had suggested that the action shouia not have been brought. However, the police evidently thought the defendant intended to obstruct them. The police evidently thought that Bennett acted in a tactless manner, and may have taken it as rudeness on his part, and they evidently thought he had "just butted in" and obstruoted them. Had Bennett told the police in the first place that he was present as attorney for Lowry, and at Lowry's request, it would have cleared the 1 matter considerably. \