RESIGNATION & REASONS

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 84, 6 October 1920, Page 8

RESIGNATION & REASONS

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POLICE

ADMINISTRATION

The Commission set up to inquire into the circumstances which led up to tha resignation of Detective-Sergeant Michael Mason from the Police Force last February, and the allegations made by Mr. Mason against police administration in Wellington, opened at the Supreme Court this morning. His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer presided, and associated with him on. the Bench was Superintendent A. H. Wright, of Auckland- fc Mr. M. Myers appeared for Mr. -Mason and Mr. C. P. Skorrett, K.C., for the senior police officers—Superintendent Norwood. Inspector M'llveney, and Detective-Sergeant Rawle—against whom Mr. Mason's allegations are in the main directed. Mr. P. i>. K. Macassey appeared for the Police Department, and Mr. P. Levi to watch the case on behalf of Richard Swaysland. The trouble arose out of the prosecution of two men, John Millanta and Ernest Miles, last year, upon a joint charge of having stolen between 30 and 40 saniitary pans belonging to the Petone Borlough Council. Detective-Sergeant Maeon, who had been in ehargo of the case, protested, while giving his evidence in the Magistrate's Court, against ibeing instructed to swear informations ■against those two men, as he had Teason to believe that a third man ■was responsible for the theft _in question, as well as for systematic thievina; of the council's property aver a .long period. Following the protest, Mr. Mason was called upon to explain his conduct, and was, he alleged, placed in such a position that no other course was open to him but to resign. A true bill was found Btjainr-t Mililanta and Miles by the Grand Jury .when the case went on to the Supreme iConrt, but the common yjry, after hearting the evidence, acquitted both men. THE ALLEGATIONS MADE. The allegations made 5y Mr. Mason against his superior officers are, in leffect :— That he was required to swear informations against Miles and Millanta, when his investigations had led him to the opposite conclusion, and lie had so reportedl. That at the hearing of the information before the Magistrate material, which was in favour of the accused persons, was not brought out by the prosecution. That, because he himself in his evidence brought out such matters, and because he thought it his duty to do so, he was called upon for an explanation of what was called his "surprising conduct." That, after the proceedings before the Magistrate, when the accused persons w.are committed for trial, inquiries were mad© for further evidence, such inquiries being handed over to another officer. That the charge of the case in the Supreme Court was handed over to another officer, and that a Hansard reporter was present to take a full note of the questions and answers ofhis evidence, which course, under the: circumstances, might well have besn calculated to intimidate an officer'in such a ■position. That he was thereby subjected, to humiliation, and his position in the Police Force mada untenable, merely because he had, in accordance with what he considered his duty, stated in Oourfc matters which, in his opinion, operated, or migljt operate, in. favour of the accused* pel-sons. That'after he had tendered his ■resignation an effort was made to force him into a position which would have the effecti of preventing a public inquiry. Mr. Myers, in opening hi« case, referred to Mr. Mason's reputation as an. honourable and capable officer during the fifteen years of his service with the Force, and mentioned the fact that a. reward of £10 had been granted him by the Commissioner in recognition of his work in running to earth persons responsible for burglaries in several warehouses in 1917.

Mr. Mason^did not at any time desire to make personal cha-rges against any officer. All he desired was a general inquiry into the circumstances of the Miles-MUlanta, case in order thai there should bo r.o repetition of such circumstances. Mr. Mason did not seek the punishment or degradation of any police officer; he merely wished to clarify the whole position. .'

Mr. Myers produced and read to the Court copifs of letters, files, and reports bearing upon the Miles-Millanta case, the resignation of Detective-Ser-geant Mason, and the making of a series of requests for a public inquiry. The reasons as set out by Mr. Mason for his resignation were that : (a) H& considered that he had been placed in a false position in the case, and that he had been compelled to take a- course of action which he considered unworthy of a, fair-minded police officer, and that because he was doing his duty in an honest, fair-minded manner a course was taken by his superior officers which showed a want of confidence in him and was unfair to the accused persons, (b) That if such tactics as had been resorted to in the case of Millanta and Miles were allowed to continue a scandal would result, and he did not desire to be implicated in anything of the kind, (c) The conclusion was forced upon him by what had happened in the case that, under existing conditions in Wellington, an officer who shows that fairness to persons accused which he had always understood it was the duty of a police officer to observe was not regarded with, favour.

Counsel then traversed the investigations mnde by Mr. Mason, and to place the position more clearly before the Court detailed the statement made by Millanta in regard to that case. A report made by Detective-Sergeant Mason on Ist October was next quoted. After traversing the facts, the Detective had reported that there seemed no possible chance of getting any foundation to work on, and explained his reason, why there was little chance of prosecuting certain suspected individuals successfully.