Evening Post. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1899. THE POLICE AND THE PRISONER.

Evening Post, Volume LVIII, Issue 67, 16 September 1899, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1899. THE POLICE AND THE PRISONER.

In a> recent issue of the New Zealand Police Gazette is circulated a vuluablo memorandum from Mr. W. R. Haeelden, tho Stipendiary Magistrate in this City. Tho memorandum is intended primarily for the guidance of the Force, but it deals with a subject that is of direct interest to tho community at large. Tho procedure in British Law Courts is as important a safeguard to tho liburty of tho subject a>3 tho luw itself, and the most vital branch of procedure is the regulation of evidence In Franco every effort is made by_ tho. ofllccra of justice to harass, entrap, and intaniduto an accused or suspected person into an admission of guilt. In Eng-lisk-spcukiug couutries, on tho other hand, tho tendency is to protect the suspect or the iiCLUbed from all such presaiuo, and to muko a criminal trial liko a civil cose depend for its issue upon an unbiased deduction from evidence freely given boforo liho Court. .While French procedure seems to aim at procuring tho maximum number of convictions in cases of guilt, British methods make it a first essential to di'fcud personal v liberty until guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. This course is entirely consistent .with British public opinion, for us My. Haselden rightly observes, " tho public and juries are inclined to resent anything liko bios ov unfair dealing on the part of the police ; they want freedom and justice first, and punishment of crime next." Tho police are specially appointed io see that tho laws are kept, and ono of their main functions is to procure tho conviction of those guilty of broaches. Hence by habit, by training, and by interest constables aro prompted to uso every efforb to prove guilty those whom they suspect. It can easily be seen that tho practice of the police may como into conflict with publio opinion and with Uie spirit of our laws uuless strict rules aro laid down for their conduct in working up ca&os. This is most hkoly to occur in the matter of admissions or statements made by suspected or accused persons to the police. Seldom do constables meet with keener criticism thau when called upon to relate in evidence conversations held with accused poisons. Unfortunately thero is on apparent discrepancy between tho law and tho approved practice in such matters. Certain statements which a constablo would in almost all cases be blamed for obtaining are yet admissible in evidence. It is true that their value is usually discounted by judicial comments, but still tlioy may bo adduced to influence tho opinion of tho Court. This" point is bi ought out very clearly in Mr. Haeelden'a memorandum. "Tho difficulty in dealing with the question of admissions and confessions made to the police otrises,'' he says, " from tho fact that neither tho Legislature nor the Courts have been able to lay down any absolute rules on tho subject. In Rog. v. Ken\ Park, J., thought it not impiop.r for a policeman to interrogate ft prisoner ; but the practico is reprobated by most Judgos, and in one case, where it appeared that tho constablo was in the habit of interrogating prisoners in his custody, Paltcßon, J., threatened to causo him" to bo dismissed from oiiico. Mr. Justico Richmond and other Now Zealand Judges have sternly condemned such interrogations, though unablo to rulo the evidence inadmissible in law, and have warned juries to pay little attention to tho evidence." It is obvious tha-t tho police would defeat their own ends by obtaining any and all evidence the law allows. Their buccess depends in tho main upon tho approval of tho community, and tho production of such facts m will appeal to a jury. Tho main point the police have to bear in mind is that they should not question arrested persons at all, and that they should not question suspected porsons merely for the purpose- of relating on oath what they said, or as Mr. Haseiden concisely sums it up, " They must not bolster up a weak case by attempting to extract admissions from tho suspects." In the case of informers, for instance, such a<J give " Queen's evidence," it is not the admissions made to the polico by tho informer which aro to bo used as evidence, but tho informer's own ' testimony as given in Court. Such statemonts made to tho polico may be used as means for putting them on tho trail of evidonce, but for no other purpose. Even this practice, which hits received for a long time the sanction of authority, is generally looked upon with disfavour. British fair play is oxtondod to our criminal courts and the

jniblic, with a true instinct, demands that in u!l cases tho trial of an offender shall bo a straight out and fair fight between tho prosecution and tho accused. We come of n, race ihat cannot bear anything liko j)olico surveillance or undue riifcs to liberty, even for tho sake of repressing crime, and our police will do well to act in nccordunce with tho memorandum referred to. Wo call admit tho difficulties that besefc tho police frequently in their efforts to obtain convictions, especially in a particular class of offences, and no doubt a large section of the public grumbles every time a suspected person escapes. Yot for the general welfare it is better that a few offenders should go scot free than that one innocent person should run the risk of conviction by having a web of suspicion deftly woven around him.