Conviction for refusal to give fingerprints

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33052, 20 October 1972, Page 6

Conviction for refusal to give fingerprints

A protester convicted on a charge of failing to supply his fingerprints to the police was told by Mr F. G. Paterson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday that changing the Police Act seemed more a matter for representations to the Legislature than to law-enforcenient agencies such as the Court. The defendant, Keith Duffield, aged 52, retired, pleaded not guilty to the charge. He was represented by Mr B. McClelland. Constable R. E. Hall said that Duffield refused to give his fingerprints when placed in a cell after being arrested at a demonstration on January 9. The witness said that fingerprints were taken of all persons arrested and bailed, except persons arrested for drunkenness. Attempts to force Duffield to give his fingerprints were unsuccessful. Duffield said that he refused to give his fingerprints because the matter was before the Privy Council and was therefore sub judice. “I thought it was a civil liberties issue and that I’d let the people down if I gave them,” he said. The Magistrate said that the law was clear from the decision of the Court of Appeal and was binding on the Court. The police were entitled to act as they did and the defendant was not entitled to refuse. Duffield’s application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council did not affect the state of the

law at the time, and Duffield had admitted in cross-exam-ination that it was secondary to the matter of his own convictions, said the Magistrate.

Senior-Sergeant F. G. Mulcare said that Duffield’s fingerprints had not been taken yet. He asked that the Magistrate defer sentence and that if Duffield gave his fingerprints this be taken into account in sentencing. “Quite improper”

Mr McClelland said that it would be quite improper for this to happen and that the defendant should be treated like any other defendant.

“I’m afraid they’re going to have to wait until next time they arrest him. No doubt they want his prints because there is a little cell in a computer somewhere which hasn’t been filled,” he said. Mr McClelland said that it was not a question of Duffield’s deliberate flouting of the law. Duffield believed that fingerprints should not be taken and still had this conviction. It had been a very expensive conviction to uphold. The Magistrate remanded Duffield on bail to be sentenced by Mr H. J. Evans, S.M., in the afternoon. When Duffield appeared in the afternoon for sentence on two charges of failing to give fingerprints and one of wilful trespass, he was remanded on bail until October 26.