ANTI-SHOUTING REGULATIONS

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 42, 18 February 1918, Page 2

ANTI-SHOUTING REGULATIONS

TEE ROYAL OAK CASE,

Further argument was, heard in ike Stipreme Court this morning, before his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Kobert Stout), in the general appeal against a decision of Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., in respect to the anti-shouting regulations, a case in which James O'Hanlon, head barman at. the Royal Oak Hotel, was the appellant. •

Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Crown, and Mr. C. P. Skerrett/K.C, for the appellant. , Mr. Skerrett\contended that the Court could not divest itself Uf the responsibility of considering and weighing the evidence, and particularly of considering the reason of tire decision of the Magistrate which induced, him to exclude the possibility of mistake on the part of the constables. It was not a question of ■credibility, but whether the Court was justified in excluduig the question o£ probability of error on the part of the constables. Until the identity of the defendant was established the onus' of proof did not enter- into the question. The opportunities of the police for observation were very efight, and while they made notes of other circumstances they made no notes of the appearance of the alleged offender. These constables were young men, new to the Police Force,, whose-faculties for observation- had obviously npt| been trained. It was an important consideration that on the same day as thq. alleged .offence these same two constables made a mistake regarding the identity of a barmaid in another case. Speaking quite frankly, said Mr. Skerrett, there was a very general feeling among the legal profession that in regard to. the Court presided over by the Magistrate from whom this appeal was brought, there was far too great a tendency to believe the police.evidence &c conclusive, and it was futile to attempt a defence contradictory of any such evidence. The most plausible explanation of the error on the part of the police -was that they saw two different men, one at 7 o'clock in the evening and the other at 7.30 o'clock, and that the last man (the oefendant) remained fixed in their mind.

Mr. Macassey' submitted that the identification was limited to two mep, and it was not possible for the police to have made a mistake.

■His Honour reserved his decision.