SUPREME COURT Obstruction, Hindrance Of Police Argued On Appeal

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31077, 4 June 1966, Page 24

SUPREME COURT Obstruction, Hindrance Of Police Argued On Appeal

Two appeals against conviction for obstructing and hindering the police were argued before Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday—one being dismissed, and decision on the other reserved.

A father and son, SidneyReginald Thorpe, aged 45, and Anthony Albert Thorpe, aged 20. both welders, appealed against their conviction for obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty, in that they advised another member of the family. Brent Thorpe, aged 18, not to give information about an alleged driving offence when the police called at 11 pm. Their counsel, Mr E. O. Sullivan, submitted that Brent Thorpe had given the police the requisite information under the Transport Act—a car owner merely being required to give his name, address, and say who had been driving his car—and that his father and elder brother bad been entitled to advise him to say nothing further. His Honour said that a father might have the right to advise his son, a minor, of his legal rights—“but the present case stands or falls on whether or not the advice given here was obstructive,” he said.

Mr Sullivan submitted it was not Rather, the police—a sergeant and two constables —had “hammered away” in an attempt to get further information, when they should have retreated, with the result that a heated situation developed. The police sergeant admitted in his evidence he had had to retire to cool off. The culmination was six policemen returned to the Thorpe’s Clyde road home at

midnight, getting the two Thorpes out of bed, and arresting them. This, said Mr Sullivan, was a case of the police pressing their powers over a comparatively trivial matter. “If it was so important, they should have been arrested, there and then, when the police first called." he said His Honour: But the police didn’t have a warrant then—and maybe they were outnumbered.

Mr Sullivan pointed out that it had been three against three.

His Honour: But the onlyway for the police to avoid unseemly fracas is to arrive in overwhelming numbers. “They retired to a prepared position, and came back with reinforcements,” said his Honour.

Mr C. M. Roper (for the Crown) said that the whole matter was not that of a father’s sensible and quiet advice to his son. At any rate, it was wrong advice—for section 5 of the Traffic Regulations empowered uniformed law officers to inspect vehicles, and yet Thorpe senior had said his son “did not have to allow the police to see his car.” One constable’s evidence was that the Thorpes were also telling the police what they could do and what they could not do. His Honour said that the Thorpes' general perform ance constituted obstruction The case against them was made out by their remarks to the police. “I’ve ho doubt that your clients’ reference to a young constable as ‘junior,’ and to the sergeant as “you with the stripes’ didn’t help matters,” he said to Mr Sullivan.

“There is no general right to all and sundry to advise a person of his legal rights,” his Honour said. “Advice given by a father to his son in a proper way may not amount to obstruction—but 1 haven’t had time to consider that matter and express a full opinion on it.” The appeal was dismissed, and the fines of £lO imposed on the two Thorpes confirmed.

Hindering The Police

Decision was reserved on an appeal by Patrick Doman Walsh, aged 40, a clerk (Mr S. G. Erber), against a conviction for hindering the police.

Dornan was convicted after accosting two constables who were questioning an Italian man in the Hong Kong Cafe, Lower High street, on suspicion that the latter had not paid for a meal. Mr Erber submitted that Doman’s real intention had been to help resolve the situation, and not hinder it—and further, that he had been charged with hindering the police in the execution of the Police Offences Act, whereas the constables were not really making inquiry under that act.

Mr Roper conceded that the Crown was under some difficulty on the latter point Further Appeals An appeal by Anthony Donald Sage, a fitter and turner (Mr A. D. Holland), against conviction for dangerous driving at Blenheim was dismissed.

An appeal by Peter Cyril Angland, a sales representative (Mr L. M. O’Reilly), against conviction for exceeding the speed limit was also dismissed.