YOUTH REFUSED TO MOVE ON

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28895, 15 May 1959, Page 13

YOUTH REFUSED TO MOVE ON

Obstruction Charge Fails A police officer could not be acting in the execution of his duty, even if he was carrying out the orders of his superior officers, if those orders were not in conformity with the law, said Mr A. P. Blair, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when dismissing a charge against Colin Malcolm Hardaker, aged 20, a motor mechanic (Mr B. J. Drake) of wilfully obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. Hardaker pleaded not guilty. Constable B. Hague said that as a result of complaints from shopkeepers in the vicinity of the Embassy and Crystal Palace Theatres he was instructed to keep the area free by senior police officers. At 1.15 p.m. on April 23 he and Constable Murray moved on loiterers near the Government Life Insurance building in Cathedral square. They saw the accused, who was leaning against a parking meter near the Strand milkbar. He was asked to move on two or three times, but said he was waiting for his girl friend. Constable Hague said he told him that if he did not move on he would be arrested for obstruction. After two more requests Hardaker was arrested when he did not move on.

To Mr Drake, Constable Hague said he personally had received no complaints about persons obstructing the footpath. He knew Hardaker, who had not caused a crowd to gather. When he went on duty he had in mind his instructions from the seniorsergeant to move on all loiterers in this part of the city, rather than the law as it related to obstruction of the footpath. He did not know until later that earlier the same day Harkaker had been . before the Court on a similar charge, which had been adjourned to allow written submissions to be made. Constable B. E. Murray said Hardaker had said that he did not have to move on as he was waiting for his girl friend. Footpath not Obstructed To Mr Drake Constable Murray said he would move on even a businessman who was waiting [for a friend to go to lunch. 'Hardaker had not interfered with the free flow of pedestrians and there was definitely no question of his obstructing the footpath. Mr Drake: Would you have carried out the instructions of a senior police officer whether they were lawful or not? Constable Murray: I would have moved all loiterers on. To Senior Detective-Sergeant J. B. McLean, Constable Murray said that if these persons gathered in Cathedral square trouble usually resulted. “I submit that this case should be disrfiissed out of hand,” said Mr Drake. Both constables had admitted that Hardaker was not obstructing the footpath and one of them agreed that his excuse that he was waiting for his girl friend was a reasonable one. There was no reference in the charge of obstructing a parking meter. The constables might well have been carrying out the orders of a senior sergeant, but he was not entitled to lay down the law according to his interpretation. Within a few minutes of leaving the Court that day Hardaker had been picked upon by two constables, he said. Both constables were doing their duty in keeping the footpaths clear, said Senior Detec-tive-Sergeant McLean. Once one person loitered it was liable to snowball. But at this stage no one had gathered, said the Magistrate. “If a constable was sent out to do something illegal like taking my car, would I not be justified in resisting him?” the Magistrate said. The constables were carrying out their orders in perfect good faith but they had to act within the letter of the law before they moved anyone on. It appeared that the law had been misinterpreted, and on the evidence the charge would be dismissed, said the Magistrate.