Police reply to letter

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33712, 9 December 1974, Page 14

Police reply to letter

It was almost impossible for the police to defend themselves against anonymous attacks made on them on hearsay, the head of the Christchurch police district (Chief Superintendent G. E. Twentyman) said. He was replying to a letter to the editor, signed “Stung Stihg,” printed in “The Press” on Thursday. The correspondent said the police declined to take action after a hall was abused by bikies, and a woman who asked the police to find her husband was told he was probably “down the road shacking with a sheila.” In reply, Mr Twentyman said the correspondent raised several issues which should be commented upon. "Firstly, as to the alleged damage caused by motorcyclists at the hall. I do not believe that no action was taken although the result may not have been evident to the writer.

“Although the identity of one motor-cyclist was known, there must also be evidence of participation to justify a prosecution of disorder or wilful damage. “NOT UNUSUAL” “As to the second circumstance, it is not unusual for the police to be asked to find ‘missing husbands’. Generally inquiries will not be made unless genuine grounds exist concerning the life or wellbeing of the missing person. “As to the colloquial language purportedly used by the member of the police consulted, one would have to judge the merits of the use of such language by the existing circumstances. “Possibly the member of the police was well aware of the circumstances and the phrase may well have accurately summed up the situation, although I do agree it could have been less crudely put

“If foul play is suspected, or the disappearance is totally out of character for the missing person, inquiries would certainly be made. I also wish to point out that quite often people only relate one side of the story, that most favourable to themselves, to friends and acquaintances. “BIKIES” “As to the stated circumstances in relation to the other alleged incident with 'bikies’, it is not simply a matter of whether the comClainant is to be believed, ut rather a matter of presenting facts before a court which could justify bringing a prosecution. “Such anonymous attacks made on the police on hearsay, as in this letter, render it almost impossible for us to defend ourselves. People in such positions as the writer's informants often make untrue, incomplete or slanted accusations about the police as a salve to their own conscience, to give a colour of justification to certain actions of theirs, or to divert attention from themselves.

“NOT ADMISSABLE” “The latter is a well-known psychological trick. “For very sound reasons, anonymous hearsay statements are not admissable in court because they are notoriously unreliable. The police, from their training and experience, are wellversed in sifting facts and summing up situations. “Despite the foregoing it is well known that the police administration welcome the opportunity, when people have grievances against the police, to investigate them. They only do so when they can accurately identify the situation.

“It must be remembered the police in Christchurch deal with more than 40,000 matters a year. We do not consider that we perfectly handle every situation to the satisfaction of everyone. It has often been said ‘Damned if we do and damned if we don’t’"