POLICE INQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 208, 30 May 1936, Page 16

POLICE INQUIRY

Application to Supreme Court Fails TROUBLE AT GISBORNE By Telegraph—Press Association. Gisborne, May 29. Charges against members of the Police Force and consequent repercussions were ventilated before the acting Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Reed) in the Supreme Court this morning when application was made for a writ of prohibition and certiorari restraining a police board of inquiry from proceeding witli the hearing. Outlining the position, the Crown prosecutor, Mr. F. W. Nolan, who appeared for the Police Department, explained that in August last an inquiry was held by Inspector Martin into charges against Constable Hendren, whose dismissal from the force was recommended by the inspector. Hendren appealed and the board varied the recommendation by advising reduction of Hendren's seniority. During the hearing of the appeal Constable Scandrett made a statement regarding the conduct of Inspector Martin, and as a result both Scandrett and Hendren appeared before Inspector Lander ebarged with making a false statement. The charges were held to be proved, and dismissal of the men was recommended. There had been considerable delay in hearing the issues and an appeal to the board was interrupted by the commencement of the present proceedings.

Mr. L. T. Burnard. for the two constables, said that they had stated at the inquiry that they saw Inspector Martin in a car witli a woman and the whole question was whether tlie inspector or the constables were to be believed. At the inquiry lie (counsel) had cross-examined witli the object of discrediting the inspector’s evidence. His Honour: There is a limit to which such cross-examination should go. Tlie whole tone of your questions leaves an impression in my mind that yon were attempting to do as much harm as possible to Martin. I don’t know whether you were instructed to give the inspector what you could because lie had prosecuted one of these men. but that is the impression left in my mind. Mr. Burnard denied that this was his intention and went on to refer to the charge previously preferred against the inspector of indecent exposure.

Mr. Nolan i interjected that this c-harge hail been withdrawn by the court at Mr. Burnard’s request, and Mr. Burnard said that it had been impossible to proceed as his witnesses had been interfered with by representatives of the I’oliee Department. After further argument the application was dismissed.