NO IMPROPRIETY

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 151, 23 December 1940, Page 9

NO IMPROPRIETY

CONDUCT OF POLICF £

PROSECUTION 9M &

• \3rJLKi.Li

COMMISSION'S REEGiPtT

) Answering all seven;• questions ; put to it in the negative, the Com ims ?sion j appointed to inquire into, tjfog c irj cumstances of the fecent p.rc^see ution of a young woman for h'aviij°- ufi nlaw- ! fully permitted an illegal: ._ upon herself found: thhat there was no impropriety in.the coir.jcluct of j the police officers who mtudf- the inquiries leading up to tb*e iprdsecution. The Commission \v as set up t by the Minister; in Charf^e; df Police a (Mr. Fraser) as the ?te;siilt of rejj marks made by the Chic f Justice (Sir ~ Michael Myers) whe?.x fne young woman. appeared" befo td -him in the Supreme Court' at- Wellington for j.. sentence.. The r.epoiv.t of the Comj mission was- releasedi. by Mr, (Fraser during the weekend: The report is^ as. ft -fellows: — "The rules-laid- dcr^ti by ]the Courts " irr New Zealand-for. tf-,he conduct of the police in the. investigation of'crime are I as follows:—A. polices ; oSicer is entitled * to make: all nece^ssWy iniguiries respecting an allef ;©d criminal offence from all persons lAkely to be able to give information relating to the offence, ' and that whethc >£ or not as suspects ' that the person fj ;om whom he is en- " deavouring to <at itain information is . connected with t) ie offence. If when i making wthose in?# uiries he has not made ... up his mind to arrest the person questioned he*, is n,ot under any duty to ' caution, him. if he has made up his '' mind, to: arrest the person, questioned •■ his duty is to <;aution him before takf ing his statement, and it is also his duty to cauticon an accused- person immediately up .an his arresL.. "Police o- fSicers have Dio right to question or; cross-examine persons already arrested upon a criminal charge, eyxrept for the purpose of elucidating ■& voluntary statement; and in taking: statements from suspected persons, F/hough they may put questions in o 4-der to get the .statement in the form of a connected story and in order to /cover every point upon which an examination is necesstiry or desirable, tfa-«e-y have no rig/ht to crossexamine • -the person upon his statement with thee view to breaking it down and forcing I?im into a confession. FACTS OF CA£flG. "The .■■•jfaets of this case ;is disclosed by the evidence taken befi&re us are as follow rs: —On October 20, .1940, a sevenmontl hfj-old human foetus, together with a catheter was found \t/tapped in a piece; of sheeting and riii newspapers on tl^'e Oroua bridge. On.*; of the newspapers was found to be a; 'Hawera Star' f of 'October 17, with a surname peni cillißd on it. Working &xi this slender ■clu-je the police in the short space of fiy «a days by a remark ta"bly efficient piece of detective wortk, in which Police officers in Tarana'feft and Palmers- : t.'on North co-operated, ( ' and which en"A'ailed a wide range -off careful in-. ../quiries, -had advanced' their investigaIjtions far enough to suspect that the : young woman in question might be able to throw some li;ght on the matter, and might even i prove to be the ? female from whom the foetus had * come and upon whom ;an illegal operation had been perform fed in Palmerston i North by some professional fet--1 "Accordingly, on October 25 Detec--5 tive-Sergeant Jarrold, and Detective I Allsopp in the course: of their duties [■ visited the home of ■ her parents in order to interview Iher. Both these officers were senior < ietectives of long ' experience, and they "were thoroughly familiar with the ru"R»s laid down for their conduct in i: ctterviewing suspected persons; but- they were both firmly under the irr hj>ression that the crime they were in investigating would turn out to be that; of a professional abortionist, and the;-.*- were both aware of the general pract:jee adopted by the police in such case; s of not prosecuting the girl upon • vJhom the illegal operation was perf jjrmed if she gave true evidence whir ih would enable a charge to be brought against the principal criminal. QUESTIONIMG OF GIRL. "They reached tb ie- home of her par- . ents about 5 p.m. and found that they were both in the v milking-shed milking, the girl being ;in the house with '. her brother. They risked for the parents ' .of the girl, and s< snt for them before asking the girl w feether she was pre- ' , pared to make a £ jjatement. They told ' her parents who fthey were and the reason for their visit, and obtained the • consent of the parents to the interview with the girl. Tb ie girl herself agreed • voluntarily to tel 2 ' the officers the ' whole story. He ft? only concern was < that she should not be asked to tell ; it in the presenc s of her father. She ] told it frankly aj. *idl without hesitation. \ Not only that, 1 hit the first part of the statement ms idle by her was typed i in the kitchen v rtiile her mother was 1 present. When the mother required j the kitchen table for the purpose of preparing the c evening meal for the - family, with he] ;« consent the two de- ] tectives retired t b the sitting-room with ( the girl to continue taking the state- ; ment. The lav rof England as to the j admissibility of confessions obtained < by the police is different from that of < New Zealand. '.In England a confes- j sion is inadmis: Jible if it was induced ] by any promise i of favour or by any j threat of punisl.jjjnent-made by a police 1 constable. In . sfew Zealand a confes- ; sion so induced if;, nevertheless, admis- , sible unless th( * Court is of opinion j that the induce: ttient was in fact likely ] to cause an un .true admission of guilt , to be made. ] "The total Ie ffigth of the interview , during which the statement was taken j was some five "Jbiours, but the statement j was a long one }, covering the events of ■ a whole week, ■ and when typed it ex- , tended to ele-< ren foolscap pages," the report continu £s. "The typing alone of a statement of that length would take even a compe feent typist a considerable time. There v /ere several breaks in the interview. D tiring the whole of the time in the : sitting-room the girl was ] in a comfor table chair in her own home within ; C all of her parents. } » NO SIC OF DISTRESS. i "During th ie whole of that time ..is 1 showed no o uitward or visible signs of } physical or J.^jimtal distress,. but never- 3 theless the > fcfi ectives were mindful of the fact that ; ; the interview must be a 1 painful orde al to her, and several 1 times durin; r the interview they asked i her if she felt well, or would like a 1 spell, and i ihe invariably replied that i she was 'al } right,' and ready tc continue her' [statement. Thinking that ] she might foe feeling cold, Detective ( Allsopp we nt out and got a rug from ( her mother ;in which he wrapped her. Later he si ,tggested to her mother that she should ; have some tea, and some- , thing to c; jtt, and some tea, bread, and •, butter, an 0. cake, were sent in, and there was ) a break during which she had a ligt i± meal. r ; "Before they left, the detectives]I

: urged the parents to call in ,their family doctor to examine the girl, telling them of the danger she might be in from blood-poisoning, and upon their consenting to this course the detectives were so concerned about her health that on their way home' they called on the doctor and induced him to go out the same night. No doubt the interview was a painful ordeal, and imposed a strain on the girl, for after its conclusion when she rejoined her parents she broke down and wept bitterly. "The shame of the discovery of her conduct by her parents would be enough in itself to upset her. Not only does the girl make no charge of oppressive conduct against the two detectives, but the evidence shows, and the parents admit, that they behaved i towards her with consideration, , and - performed their distasteful and embar- j t rassing task with humanity and understanding. ' OMISSION OF CAUTION. "With regard to their omission to : caution the girl, both the detectives : honestly believed when she first ad- . mitted the abortion that it would turn . out to be the work of a professional abortionist. They were well aware of the general practice of the police in : such a case not to prosecute the girl, ■ and it did not occur to them that they • were doing anything more than ob- ,. taining evidence for the prosecution of > the principal offender. It did not rest ; with them to decide whether she would "be prosecuted or not. That decision . was in the hands of the inspector of . police at Palmerston North. "They were merely taking these statements at the request of the police authorities at Palmerston North, by , whom the inquiry was being conductt cd. In these circumstances, experienced ' though they were, it did not occur to ! either of them that it was necessary [ to caution the girl, and in our opinion . it was unnecessary for them to do so. k They told her that her statement was being taken as evidence, which was in * accordance with their belief. "They treated the girl with such i consideration that she was induced to . believe that she would not have to . answer a criminal charge, but we are satisfied that they made her no pro- ', mise of indemnity. Had they done so it would have been their duty to inform the inspector at Palmerston North i when returning the file, and they were aware of that duty. But they did not expect that the girl would be prosecuted, and Detective-Sergeant Jarrold's minute on the file which was made when he sent back the girl's statement indicates clearly that he thought it, was only to be used as evidence in the prosecution of the principal offender. When later he was instructed to arrest the girl on a criminal charge he was genuinely upset, and he performed this unpleasant duty with obvious reluctance. ACTION OF INSPECTOR. "As to whether Inspector Scott, in deciding whether a charge should be laid against the girl as well as against the man, acted harshly or in breach of faith, that cannot be suggested in the circumstances of the case. Inspector Scott had been the officer entrusted with the duty of preparing the police statement required by the commission which was set up in 1937 to recommend methods of remedying the evils of abortion. He was familiar with the recommendations of that commission. He was aware of the prevalence of the evil and of the difficulty of obtaining convictions even when the evidence is clear. He was aware of the reason often given for the failure of juries to convict an abortionist, namely, that the woman upon whom the illegal operation had been performed had escaped prosecution. This was a bad case. The child was born alive and had actually breathed. "The inspector knew from the file that she had not been promised an indemnity. In these circumstances he decided that it was in the public interest that the girl should be prosecuted as well as the man. In so doing he committed no breach of faith, nor did he act unjustly or harshly. Indeed, we think in the circumstances he would have laid himself open to criticism if he had decided that the girl should go free." ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. The answers of the Commission to the specific questions asked in the order of reference as it was necessary to answer are as follows:— 1. Do the circumstances of the said prosecution disclose any impropriety in the conduct of the police officers concerned? Answer: No. 2. (a) Were the police officers who took a statement from the girl under a duty to warn her that she was not obliged to make any statement, but that if she did make one it might be used in evidence upon her trial? Answer: No. (c) Was the failure or omission to give such warning likely to induce the girl to make an untrue admission of guilt? Answer: No. (d) Was any promise express or implied given to the girl by the said police officers before or at the making of the« said statement? Answer: No. (f) Was any threat, express implied or constructive, used by the said police officers towards the girl before or at the time, of her making of the said statement? Answer: No. (h) Do the circumstances of the taking of the said statement disclose that the conduct of the police officers concerned was oppressive or inconsiderate or such as to impose an undue physical or mental strain upon the girl? Answer: No. (j) Was it a breach of faith or otherwise unjust or unconscionable on the part of the police to prosecute the girl? Answer: No. The remarks of the Chief Justice which gave rise to the inquiry were made in the Wellington Supreme Court on November 27. They were as follows: —"This case calls for strict inquiry. It calls, in my opinion, for something more than departmental inquiries. I don't intend to prejudge it in any way. I cannot do that. Ido not know the various sides of it, but it calls for inquiry by a competent tribunal of men who know something about the conduct of justice in criminal cases." | At the first sitting of the House of Representatives after the publication of these remarks in the Press, Mr. Fraser announced that in view of the serious nature of the comment he felt it his duty to lose no time in informing the House and the country that an inquiry would be held at the earliest possible opportunity.