POLICE STATEMENTS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 57, 8 March 1930, Page 7

POLICE STATEMENTS

ACCIDENT CASES

THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

j The much-discussed question as to the production of police statements in motor collision cases was raised before Mr. E. Page, S.M., in J;he Magistrate's Court on Thursday during the hearing of a case in which John Sarlet, timberstacker, of . Wellington, proceeded against Leslie King, dairy farmer, of Ohariu, for £70 6s 6d damages for personal -injuries received by the plaintiff through being knocked down by a motor-car in Adelaide road on 22nd August last. > Constable L. G. Smith, who was call- * ed for the plaintiff regarding a statement given in writing by King immediately after the accident, said that lie had re-read the statement and knew its contents, but he could not produce it, as it was police property.

Mr. Page said lie saw no reason why; such statements should not be put in as evidence. It was time that this vexed question was settled.

Mr. L. M. Goodwin, counsel for thai plaintiff, said that in a ease heard by, the late Mr. Justice Sim, his Honour ordered the statement to be put in as evidence, but gave no ruling as to the practice. ~■•■'

Mr. W. E. Leicester, counsel for tk» defendant: "It would be ill the interests of justice if the Commissioner of Police permitted all statement* made to be available to both the parties in a collision ease. • The present position is the cause of great dissatisfaction to those concerned in the:conduct of these actions, and I understand that the Council of the New Zealand Law Society is being, asked to make a recommendation to the proper quarter." .

The Magistrate allowed the constable to be questioned about the contents of ".he statement.

At the conclusion of the evidence for the plaintiff, Mr. Leicester .moved for a non-suit on the grounds that, there was no affirmative proof of negligence that the defendant had not been positively proved to have contributed to the accident and that the plaintiff hadbeeu guilty of contributory negligence. The Magistrate said that the circumstances were unfortunate. He thought it probable that the defendant had knocked the plaintiff down, but tha morning was dark and, the visibility; was bad. There had been no proof of negligence adduced, but the strongest ground against the plaintiff was the fact that he had walked out in front-of the on-coming ear when he could £avo paused or stopped.

A - non-suit was granted, with-cos-ti to the defendant. . :; ■■