Police kept watch for consorting

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33819, 16 April 1975, Page 11

Police kept watch for consorting

The Christchurch police were requested to report all sightings of Douglas Sydney Low, aged 21, when he was seen to be -consorting with reputed thieves, Mr W. F. Brown, S.M., was told in the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court yesterday.

Detective Sergeant N. W. Milsum said this when giving evidence when Low appeared on a charge that he was idle and disorderly in that he habitually consorted with reputed thieves.

Witness said that after he made this request 16 sightings were reported between August 5 and September 23. The officers w-ere instructed to notify Low that the people he was with were reputed thieves. On numerous occasions Low was warned by the police that he was liable fo: prosecution for consorting, unde: the Police Offences Act. Low was arrested on Septem her 23. 1974. A previous hearing was adjourned as a decision on tne case was to have been made by the Supreme Court on the validity of the arrest and whether the Court had jurisdic tion to deal with the matter. The case did not go before the Supreme Court, as Mr Browr found that the decisions could be made in the Magistrate’s Court.

Low (Mr G. M. Brodie) had Pleaded not guilty. A number of police officers said in evidence that they had sighted Low in the company of reputed thieves and had warnec’ Low of this.

Detective Sergeant Milsum said that it was his idea to attempt to charge Low with consorting and that the idea was agreed to by his superiors. To do thi: he would log all sightings anc warnings made by himself and other members of the police. Mr Brodie said the number of times Low had been stopped and warned was closer to 80 than 16 the first being in late March 1974 He queried the necessity of such a large number of warn Ings and said he had written tc the police complaining, on Low's behalf, of this “harassment.”

Detective Sergeant Milsum said that three warnings and four sightings reported within a short space of time were necessary before action was taken and this had not happened. Mr Brodie cross-examined the witnesses as to the criteria they used in calling someone a reputed thief. The answers were that police files and the opinions of other members of the police force were used to ascertain a person’s reputation. Mr Brodie regarded' this as hearsay. He said: “I strongly object to hearsay being used as evidence in forming the view that someone is a reputed thief. “It must be the function of the Court to have a look at evidence covering people’s reputations, and not go on hearsay,” he Mr Brown said he did not agree, saying that a policeman could give his reasons as to why someone was a reputed thief. The case was adjourned until April 29.