CHARGE AGAINST POLICE OFFICER

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25549, 17 July 1948, Page 8

CHARGE AGAINST POLICE OFFICER

APPEAL BOARD HOLDS CASE PROVED REDUCTION MADE IN PENALTY (P.A.) GISBORNE, July 16. The decision of a board of appeal in a ! case involving a senior-sergeant of police at Ruatoria has been delivered. The board i held that the charge had been proved, but ; that the penalty imposed had been too I severe, in view of the special circum- • stances of the case. The Minister in 1 charge of Police (Mr P. Fraser) has therei fore amended the penalty in accordance ■ with the board’s recommendation, to a ; i eduction in seniority only, whereby the ; senior-sergeant will be placed at the bottom of the list of appointed senior-ser- ' geants, with seniority from July 1, 1948. j The case was one which excited great interest in Ruatoria. Many leading citij zens, both Maori and pakeha, gave evi- ■ dence on behalf of the senior-sergeant, ! including Sir Apirana Ngata and all six local Justices of the Peace. Many witnesses said that the senior-sergeant was i the most efficient and popular officer ever placed in charge at Ruatoria. I The police officer was charged with two offences, heard before Superintendent Fox at Ruatoria from April 13 to 16 last. They ; were: (1) frequenting licensed premises for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor: and (2) associating with Maoris in drinking liquor in bar licensed prei mises. Mr L. T. Burnard appeared for s the defence. Superintendent Fox dis-

missed the second charge during the course of the hearing, but held the first charge proved. The senior-sergeant appealed, and the appeal was heard before Mr J. A. Gilmour, S.M., Superintendent J. A. Dempsey, and Senior-Sergeant F. W. Edwards, at Ruatoria, from June 15 to 19 last.

Evidence in support of the charge was given by the licensee and. members of his family. Mr Burnard, for the senior-sergeant, raised two defences: (1) that the charge disclosed no offence. Authorities showed that a person was taken to ,have “frequented” premises if he paid several visits only. Police regulations did not prohibit police officers in plain clothes drinking in an hotel in common with the public, yet on the established meaning of the word “frequenting,” police officers throughout the country “habitually frequented” a hotel in common with the public. What police officers were permitted to do every day could not therefore constitute an offence. (2) That if the first defence failed, the overwhelming evidence of 20 independent witnesses disproved any allegation of excessive visits to the hotel, and established the complete sobriety, efficiency, and attention to duty of the senior-sergeant. In the result, the senior-sergeant retains his rank, but ranks for promotion below senior-sergeants appointed since 1946, believed to be two in number.