POLICE QUESTIONING AT SCHOOLS DISCUSSED

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28929, 24 June 1959, Page 2

POLICE QUESTIONING AT SCHOOLS DISCUSSED

A solicitor, a police inspector, a headmaster and a parent gave their views on the problems of police interrogation of school [children at a meeting of the Christchurch branch of the • Federation of New Zealand Parents’ Centres last evening. Introducing the subject, the chairman (Mr H. Adams) said ihat the interrogation by members of the police force of children in schools when parents were not present was giving occasion for thought, and being examined by the New Zealand Educational [ Institute at present. | There was no special provision [governing police questioning of [children, the solicitor explained. i As with adults, police were em- , powered to question children for [information in school or out of [school according to a basic set of i rules set up to see that interroga- [ tion methods were fair. At a certain point where the police inter- [ rogator had gained enough inI formation to charge a person, he ! must caution him that what he [said would be taken down as ' evidence for or against him. at the same time telling the person he 1 was not obliged to give evidence. Judges had a wide discretion when considering whether state- ! ments made were properly given or should be excluded as [evidence. In the matter of con- [ fessions the law stated that a [ i judge should not exclude evidence! [Unless it was likely to be untrue. | [This amendment to an earlier law : providing that confessions might 1 not be induced by threat or pro-1 , mise might open the way for’doubtful practices, the solicitor! said. Preventing Mischief j From the police point of view ! there were definite advantages to [ ! interviewing children at school.! [the police inspector said. “Naturally many parents take the atti-j | tude that their children can do , no wrong. If a child was questioned in front of his parents and

the parent answered ’You wouldn't do a thing like that’— the child would naturally deny it,” he said. This attitude could harm the child because it was better to see that a child was corrected early for a mischievous act than to let him feel he could get away with it, thus encouraging him to continue misbehaving. Misbehaviour often occurred in groups on the way to school, the inspector said. It was better and more effective for the police to question children as soon as possible after the event and before they had got their heads together to ccncoct a story. In front of parents they would not always speak the truth. In front of strangers they were more likely to do so. It was sometimes unfair to the child to interview him at the end of the day at home when he was tired. Many headmasters appreciated the occasional visit of police officers to their schools as a preventive measure for mischievous behaviour, he said. Headmaster's View

It was incumbent upon headmasters to give moral instruction and character training to children in their charge, the headmaster said. Therefore, a certain amount of co-operation with the police was desirable. It should be remembered that police officers [always interviewed children at school in plain clothes. At homes [they might appear in uniform. It might, therefore, be a service to the child and his family if the [questioning were done at school because once neighbours’ tongues ! began to wag a matter would : begin to build up. he believed.

“If the matter is of a serious nature I defer the interview until the parents are present. But in 35 years I have not had to do this—the police have always themselves followed that procedure," he said. He had not seen a police officer bully a child, although he had heard some complaints of this from other schoolmasters.

Friendly police officers visiting his schools had helped children to understand the duties of the police force and had helped to build up better relations with the law. He spoke highly of the attitude of suburban policemen in trying to keep young people on the right track. "We must do something .to combat delinquency and if we exclude police altogether from the schools we are not doing all we can to put some of these people on the right road,’’ the headmaster saitj.

There was a sood attitude towards the police among most children today, the parent representative said. Most children regarded the police as their guardians and were willing to answer questions truthfully and without fear. He agreed that a parent could prejudice a child’s information to he police, but there was a great danger of children's evidence being unreliable. "Children romance and they are susceptible to strong jealousies. Being primitive creatures they will not hesitate to take it out on classmates.”

As a parent, he took the attitude of neutrality, he said. “I am not adamant that I must be there during an interview. I feel that the answers of a child to the police are likely to be honest and

straightforward unless he is! romancing,” he said. j