Wider Police Powers Sought

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31399, 19 June 1967, Page 20

Wider Police Powers Sought

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter —Copyright) LONDON.

The privilege of a suspect to keep silent before his trial should be abolished, says a report published by Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists.

The report, by the Justice Committee on Evidence, is endorsed by the members of the. organisation’s council, with the former AttorneyGeneral, Sir John Hobson, Q.C., dissenting. It also proposes safeguarding a suspect from improper police pressure by making a confession inadmissible in evidence unless it is made and recorded before a Magistrate. The report says that in bankruptcy, revenue and company matters there are wide powers of interrogation. “Hands Tied” “No similar powers exist against suspected murderers, rapists or robbers.” Police complain that their hands are tied, and the present complex requirements gravely hamper investigations.

Defendants often allege that incriminatory statements attributed to them have been invented or distorted, or were the result of pressure. “Such allegations are undoubtedly true in some cases,” the report says.

Existing practice is sup-i posed to be founded upon I “the so-called principle of rule” that a man shall not' be required to incriminate I himself, for which there seem to be two main reasons. “The first is that it is a safeguard against improper police methods. The second is that any other rule would be unfair. “It is considered that this latter sporting attitude has no place in a modern society, and that whilst the first reason is of the greatest importance, though it is by no means always achieved under the present system, the second, provided there are proper safeguards, can no longer hold water.”

The committee’s proposals have three main objectives: To arm the police with more effective powers of investigation;

To give suspects proper protection and to eliminate any abuses which may occur under present procedure; To eliminate many “timewasting, undignified and often inconclusive arguments which now take place in the course of criminal trials.”

The committee says existing powers of arrest would be retained and police would be able to apply to a magistrate for a summons to interrogate a suspect. Limited Period

“Consideration should be given to granting the police the power to arrest for a limited period sufficient to determine whether grounds for suspicion exist, and to apply for a summons to interrogate.”

If a person objected to interrogation on the grounds

that he was not a suspect, it should be for the police to prove to the magistrate that reasonable grounds for suspecting him exist. Police should explain grounds for arrest or suspicion to the suspect as soon as was reasonably practicable. They should at the same time tell him his rights of legal representation at the interrogation and provide facilities for him to contact his legal adviser.

If the suspect has no legal adviser at the interrogation, the presiding Magistrate should satisfy himself that the suspect has been afforded facilities for contacting a legal adviser, and must then ! decide whether legal aid is appropriate.

Legal aid should be extended to apply to interrogations.

' During interrogation, police .would be entitled to put leading questions, but the presiding Magistrate should dis- , allow any question which he thought unfair or improper. “The suspect would retain all his normal privileges to refuse to answer questions, with the exception of the

privilege against self-incrim-ination.

“No statement made by the suspect after becoming a suspect may be put to him during the interrogation by leading questions. He may, however, be asked whether he has made any such statement. “His denial that he has made such a statement shall be final.”

The Magistrate would not act as an examining Magistrate, but would be entitled to put questions to clear up ambiguities in answers. A suspect would have the right—and must be told that he has the right—to make a statement before a Magistrate, whether the police wish to interrogate him or not. A complete verbatim record of the interrogation should be made and kept in the custody of the Magistrate to pass on to the trial court. The committee recommends that wherever possible, a tape-recording would be the best method of taking the record.

Any statement made by a person before becoming a suspect or being taken into custody would continue to be admissible in evidence.