DISTURBANCES AT MEETINGS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22359, 24 March 1938, Page 12

DISTURBANCES AT MEETINGS

PQLICE POSITION

EXPLAINED

MR FRASER REPLIES TO

MR HOLLAND

INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED TEN

YEARS AGO

(TRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.)

~ ' : WELLINGTON. March 23. The following statement has been handed to the press by the Minister in charge of the Police Department (the Hen. P. Fraser), in reference to some published remarks of Mr S. G. Holland, M.P., made during a speech delivered at the National Party’s garden party at Cave:— “Mr Holland is reported to have used the following words in reference to the police generally, and with particular reference to those on duty at meetings' addressed by him at Dunedin and Tirriaru: ‘What are the police doing? They have their instructions, and they are not allowed to remove a man from a meeting unless they have written instructions from the speaker beforehand. They came to me in Dunedin, and asked me what I wanted them to do. I told them they knew their duty, and should do it, and they replied that ,they had to have written instructions, il asked them if I hit the chairman on (the nose, would they wait until he recovered- and put .it in writing, before they could interfere.’ “If Mr Holland is correctly reported, This statement amounts to a grave reflection on the police'as a whole, and ion those who were on duty at the meet-, lings he addressed In Dunedin and Tlmaru in particular, and, in addition, his remarks are as uninformed as they are , ‘baseless. If Mr Holland meant to conI vey to his audience and the public of [New Zealand that instructions In- retgard to maintaining order at political (meetings had been issued to the police jby the present Government, or by myself as Minister in charge of the police, [then at best he was circulating a gross inaccuracy, and at worst he was guilty ■of deliberate and rather miserable misrepresentation, indulged in for political purposes. - Issue' of Instructions “It is quite true that the police have their instructions in- regard to maintaining order at public meetings; but those instructions were issued on October'l7, 1928, by the then Commissioner of Police, acting under the Minister in charge of police in the Reform i Government. They have been in force ■ alteration under .the United land National Governments, and are in vibperatibn without alteration or varia- • {tion to-day. - The police carry out these . (instructions, which are based- upon the Jlaw embodied in Sections 3 and 6 of the Police Offences Act; 1927, without fear, favour, or partiality, and they will continue to do so. “The efficiency with which the police can carry out their duties in respect to political meetings -depends upon, and is conditioned by, the amount of authority vested in'them by the promoters of the meetings. The hall in which a meeting is held, if hired or otherwise used by permission of the owner, is completely under the control of the hirer or user, so that he or his agent may remove or exclude any person at will. Persons who are requested to leave by either of them and refuse, become trespassers,, and on a second request, followed by a refusal, commit an offence. The police, if authorised, by a proper person, may eject such •trespassers.

-Members of the police were deflnitely instructed by the Commissioner of Police on - October 17, 1928, when a Reform Government was in office and presumably with the knowledge and consent of the then Minister for Police, that ‘it is very desirable to obtain such written authority before a meeting.’ The object in getting authority from the chairman of a meeting to eject persons disturbing the meeting is to protect the police in the execution of their duty. There should always be co-operation between the chairman of a meeting and the officers of the police in charge of the constables doing duty at these meetlr}S3. It is not for a sergeant or constable to say a certain individual is disturbing the meeting—that is the duty of the chairman—he and he alone is the man to say if a meeting is disturbed. He is in charge of it. A Case Dismissed

“A case is on record where the police, on their own initiative, prose-

cuted two men for disturbing a meeting. The chairman, after the matter cooled down, came to Court and said in his opinion the meeting was not disturbed, and the charges were dismissed, the Court holding that it had no alternative but to dismiss, the informations on the chairman’s evidence.

"It is not advisable for a constable to put a person out of a political meeting without a direction from the chairman. A constable might speak to a hostile interjector, and warn him; but force, without a request from the chairman( may involve a constable in an action for assault.

“If Mr Holland argued with the police officer who interviewed him at the Dunedin meeting in the manner he described at Cave, then the exhibition of lack of elementary knowledge concerning public meetings was pitiable m a member of Parliament. But things were obviously not quite so bad at the Dunedin meeting as Mr Holland made out to his listeners at Cave. Indeed, it would appear that the secretary of the Otago and Southland division of the National Party, Mr Falconer, who, I understand, was organiser of the meeting, knew his business much better than the visiting member of Parliament, for while Mr Holland, according to himself, was futilely on false premises with little or no knowledge of the legal position, the former was signing the requisite authority enabling the police to take the necessary action in the case of a possible disturbance. That authority was contained in a letter to the superintendent of police, Dunedin, dated February 24, and reads: In response to your request, I have to advise that you have the authority of this organisation to summarily eject any person or persons wilfully disturbing to-night’s meeting in the concert chamber of the Town Hall; but it is our desire that a reasonable amount of latitude be allowed.’ Police Praised

hj) addition, and in spite of Mr Holland s remarks on Saturday, the police who were on duty at his meeting in Dunedin carried out their duties to the satisfaction of both the chairman and the organiser of the meeting. The former, after the meeting, expressed appreciation of the services rendered by the police, while the latter sent a letter of unqualified approval of the police contt-ol of the meeting to the Superintendent of Police at Dunedin. The letter, which was signed by Mr A. S. Falconer, as secretary of the Otago-Southland branch of the New Zealand National Party, reads: T am instructed to write to you expressing the appreciation of my chairman and Committee of the excellent control exercised over the meeting addressed by Mr S. G. Holland in the Concert Chamber, last evening. Such responsibilities are always difficult; but the admirable restraint and unostentatious action of members of your detachment on • the occasion of this meeting met with the unqualified approval of all associated with organising ,(he function, May I ask. that sentiments be conveyed, to those members of the force who were on duty.’ ‘lt is quite, clear from these facts,’ said Mr Fraser, “that members of the Police Force present at Mr Holland’s meeting in Dunedin not only did their duty, but did it well, and to the complete satisfaction of the chairman and organiser of the meeting. In face of this, Mr Holland’s reference to the matter at Cave is inexplicable on S r °unds of fact, and is only understandable as a unique example of polical partisanship indulged in with the deliberate object of prejudicing the Government. The sooner Mr Holland and- others 'actively interested in politics understand that it is unfair that the good name of the officers and men of the Police Force should be attacked or abused for party purposes, the better for all concerned. If any direct and definite charge of dereliction of duty is made against any member or members of the force, it. will be investigated immediately. The Police Force has a duty to perform in keeping order at political meetings. They are carrying out that duty, and will continue to carry it out. , “As I have not yet received an official report on Mr Holland’s Timaru meeting, I cannot express any opipion regarding the attitude of the police on duty there; but I see no reason to believe that they would act any differently from the police at Dunedin. Free Speech and Fair Play

“Mr Holland’s references to the Government and members of the Cabinet are really beneath serious notice. The Government stands to-day as it always has stood, for free speech and fair play for a political opponent, as well as for a political The law for controlling public meetings will be enforced by the police in future, as it has been in the past, and is being enforced now when the course I have indicated above is observed in accordance with law •by the promoters of meetings. “The Government has far more to lose than its political opponents from any refusal of free speech, or any stupid interference with Opposition meetings. Its worst enemies, and the worst enemies of democracy, are those—no matter what political label they bear—who attend political meetings and refuse a speaker of any party or shade of opinion a fair hearing. Democracy can only endure where there is freedom of speech, and freedom of opinion. As the national trustee of freedom of speech, and freedom of opinion, elected by the people under our democratic constitution, the Government must, and will, continue to safeguard that fundamental principle of democracy. In my opinion, the law as it stands at present is ample to do this if the necessary co-opera-tion is given to the police by the promoters of meetings; but should it be shown that the law requires strengthening; this will be done. However, as it was considered sufficient under the Reform, United, and National Governments, I have no doubt that it will prove adequate now. The Commissioner of Police and his officers and men have the full support of the Government in enforcing the law.”