Costs Awarded Against Police

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31142, 19 August 1966, Page 7

Costs Awarded Against Police

Because Inspector R. P. Silk took a man into custody on a bookmaking charge and kept him in the cells for some appreciable time when he could have been dealt with by way of summons, Mr E. A. Lee, S.M., awarded costs of £5 5s against the police in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. A charge against Robert Manuera Thoms, a showman, of carrying on business as a bookmaker was dismissed. He pleaded not guilty, and was represented by Mr W. F. Brown.

The charge arose out of Thoms’s conduct of the game known as red, white, and blue at the Ellesmere Show at Leeston on October 16. In the game the player throws a dart at a board marked with narrow coloured stripes. On a case stated, Mr Justice Wilson this month found that the game would constitute bookmaking only if both showman and player had no other interest in their contract than the money at stake

and if the player had no other motive for playing. Dismissal Sought Yesterday Mr Brown submitted that the police had failed to prove that the persons who had played the game at Leeston did so solely to win money, and the charge should be dismissed. The Magistrate said that there was no suggestion that the defendant was a bookmaker in the ordinary sense of the word, but it was claimed that he had brought himself within the definition of a bookmaker. Nor was there any suggestion that the defendant was not acting honestly or properly in the conduct of the game. He had promoted the game for the money he might win, but it was not suggested that there was anything improper in that It was not possible to determine what had been in the minds of the persons who had played the game. They might have been demonstrating their skill, and only small sums were involved. The charge would be dismissed, said the Magistrate.

Mr Brown then applied for costs against the police. He said that Thoms was arrested at the Leeston Show at 2.30 p.m. on the instructions of the inspector on a charge of playing a game of chance in a public place. Thoms was taken to the Central Police Station and held in the cells until after 9 p.m. He was then informed that the charge of bookmaking i was to be substituted for the! one on which he had been! arrested. The charge of conducting a' game of chance was withdrawn when Thoms came before the Magistrate’s Court, but counsel had already made investigations in Dunedin on this charge and had incurred expenses. Thoms had been engaged in a game that had been conducted at country shows for more than 40 years, Mr Brown said. He was of good character. When the question of law arose and the matter was taken to the Supreme Court he was involved in considerable expense. The charge and the arrest were unnecessary and unjust, and there was no reason for the inspector to act in such a manner.' The Magistrate had commented on a previous occasion that it was “like taking a sledge-hammer to crack a nut.” The matter had been handled deplorably, and it was a proper case to award substantial costs against the police, said Mr Brown. Detective-Sergeant D. Porteous said that his Honour’s decision showed that the police were justified in the action they took, and he opposed the application. Magistrate’s View The Magistrate said there was some difference of opinion among the police over the legality of the game. The defendant had carried on in defiance of an instruction to stop, and ordinarily costs would not be awarded. However, it was true that the defendant was taken into custody in circumstances that did not seem at all necessary. The offence was not a vicious one, even if he had been offending. Even if it had continued throughout the day, no great harm would have been done. In view of the circumstances I will make a moderate allowance for costs of £5 55,” the Magistrate said.