ACTION AGAINST POLICE

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24986, 21 September 1946, Page 2

ACTION AGAINST POLICE

ALLEGED WRONGFUL ARREST WRIT OF SUMMONS STRUCK OUT (P.A.) AUCKLAND, September 20. A motion to strike out a writ of summons and statement of claim for damages, brought against two Inspectors of Police by a labourer, was heard by Mr Justice Fair in the Supreme Court. The claim, which was brought by James W’illiam Payne 'Mr Field) last September against Inspector Michael Joseph Angland and Inspector Daniel Joseph O’Neill, was for £lOOO damages for alleged wrorgful arrest, false imprisonment and assault. The claim arose because in 1942 Inspector (then sergeant) Angland applied for a reception order under the M ital Defectives Act for *he committal of Payne to an institution. Payne, as an alternative ground of action. alleged conspiracy between the two police officers. Mr Rosen, supporting the motion to strike out the action, said the Court had an inherent right to dismiss such proceedings on the ground that they were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the procedure of the Court. The matter, at least as far as Angland was concerned, had already been adjudicated upon by the Court of Appeal in 1944, when it upheld Mr Justice Callan’s refusal to allow Payne to proceed on the ground of alleged wrongful arrest and imprisonment, said Mr Rosen. Plaintiff was now attempting, by joining another police officer as the second defendant and by adding an alternative claim founded on alleged conspiracy between the two, to circumvent the decision of the Court of Appeal. If there was any substance in the matters against O’Neill, they could have been raised in earlier proceedings. Mr Field said Angland had suppressed important facts that he well knew, such as that Payne behaved well, that there were no complaints about him by neighbours, and that the only thing against him was that he wrote certain letters to prominent people. There was reason to believe Angland did not honestly believe the application he made was a justifiable one. His Honour said the Court of Appeal had held there was no substantial ground for alleging Angland had acted in bad faith. The proceedings must be dismissed on Several.grounds. One was that these matters nad already been considered very fully both by the Supreme Court and by the Court of Appeal, which decided that there was no substantial ground for contention that Sergeant Angland had acted in bad faith or without reasonable care. His Honour made the order asked for, striking out the writ of summons and the statement of claim, and allowed defendants £2l costs and disbursements. _ .