LICENSING ACT BREACHES

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27637, 19 April 1955, Page 8

LICENSING ACT BREACHES

TWO POLICE TRAINEES CONVICTED LIQUOR BOUGHT AFTER HOURS Two probationary police constables who purchased liquorf rom the licensee of the Mitre Hotel, Lyttelton, after hours, were convicted in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday by Mr Rex C. Abernethy, S.M., on charges of being on licensed premises after hours and with aiding and abetting the licensee of the hotel in the commission of an offence. All parties to the offence, the licensee and the probationary constables, pleaded guilty to the charges. Harold Eugene Hayward, licensee of the hotel (Mr B. J. Drake), was charged with selling liquor after hours on April 6, and William Douglas Good and Edward George Perry, two police trainees, were each charged with being on licensed premises after hours on April 6 and with aiding and abetting Hayward in the commission of an offence.

Hayward was convicted and fined £5 and Good and Perry were each convicted and fined £1 and 10s on the respective charges. Sub-Inspector J. C. Fletcher, when outlining the case against the licensee, said that on April 6, about 11.30 p.m., two men “from a certain institutipn at Lyttelton” bought a < bottle of whisky from Hayward and the whisky led to a little trouble in the town later on. All the parties were known to each other. The two men had been granted evening leave and had misused that leave.

“It is only fair to my client to say that the two young men "were probationary police constables, who telephoned Hayward from the training school. ’ said Mr Drake. “In the telephone conversation Hayward had said he was going to bed but the men insisted that he should sell them some liquor. There was a suggestion that the liquor was to be used for a function that evening at the school. Hayward met the two men at the door of the hotel and gave them the bottle of whisky.”

Mr Drake submitted that Hayward would not have offended if he had not been approached by the men, whose occupations he knew, and who told him that everything would be all right; “It is most unfortunate that this man is in the position that he can have a conviction entered against him because two men were trading on their job of being in the police force," said Mr Drake. In the circumstances, he submitted that in view of Hayward’s record since he .had been a licensee of hotels, the Court could discharge him without conviction under Section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act.

Sub-Inspector Fletcher: I cannot conceive that the licensee was trapped into this.

“The licensee knew he was committing an offence and I cannot discharge him without some penalty,” said the Magistrate. Charges Against Trainees

Outlining the case against the othe two men, Sub-Inspector Fletcher sai' that evening the two men were hear arranging “something of the sort” ar Sergeant E. J. G. Hotham. officer » charge of the school, followed they and saw them enter the hotel. Th r licensee later admitted that he had sole’ them a bottle of whisky. “There was a shindv in the town afterwards and the bottle of whisky did not help,” said Sub-Inspector Fletcher. Good said the whisky had not been procured under threat. They had asked the licensee if he would sell the whisky and he agreed. Perry said that when the telephone call was made from the school no mention of a party at the school was made and nothing was said about their beiny constables. It was a personal transaction. The Magistrate said he was not sure if this was no more than a bit of foolishness on their part. “You we?e acting as policemen, which might make it worse than if you were ordinary citizens. I think you gave little thought to the matter and I will give vou the benefit of the doubt,” said the Magistrate.