WELLINGTON POLICE

Evening Star, Issue 17489, 21 October 1920, Page 10

WELLINGTON POLICE

REPOBI OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. OFFICERS EXONERATED., IPkb United Prkss Association.] WELLINGTON, October 20. The report of the* Commission appointed to inquire into certain charges made by Michael Mason, late detective-sergeant of the Police Force in Wellington, against Samuel Percival Norwood (Superintendent of Police) and William Bernard M'llveney, (Inspector of Police), alleging acts of misconduct by them in their capacities as superintendent and inspector respectively, was made available for publication by the Minister of Justice (the Hon. E. P. Lee) to-night. The Commission consisted, or Mr Justice Stringer and Mr A. H. Wright (Superintendent of Police, Auckland). The Commission refer at length to the facts of the case, and deal seriatim with tho charges made against Superintendent Norwood and Inspector M'llvqney, after which they say : In conclusion, and to sum up our opinion, wo desire to state emphatically : (1) That there is not the slightest foundation for the charges made by Detective-sergeant Mason, or on his behalf, against Superintendent Norwood and Inspector M'llveney, or either of them. (2) That these officers acted throughout the proceedings in question with a proper sense of their responsibility, and without deviating in the least dogree from their duty to act in a fair, honorable, and straightforward manner in their conduct or direction of the proceedings against persons suspected of breaches of the criminal law, , (3) That the facts of tho case under review clearly justified, if they did not demand, proceedings being -taken to place Millanta and Miles upon their trial be-fore an appropriate judicial tri- . bunal, as is confirmed by the fact that the Stipendiary Magistrate, after hearing the evidence (including those facts alleged by Detective-sergeant Mason to have been withheld from the Court in tho first instance), was satisfied that a prima facie case had been established, and had 'committed accused to the Supreme Court for trial.

(4) That there was not the slightest 1 attempt on the part of any of the police officers concerned with the prosecution of suppressing evidence or facts relevant ■ to the inquiry which might legitimately have given an innocent complexion to the unquestionably suspicious conduct of the accused. . (5) That the charges emanated from Detective-sergeant Mason because of his exaggerated estimate of the value of his own opinion, which was' contrary to that of his superior and more experienced officer _; and because, finding that the prosecution was to ensue contrary to his own view of the case, he became obsessed with the idea that an injustice was likely to be done to the accused, and that he in some way or other was called upqn to try to avert this supposed injustice. The following paragraph signed by Mr Justice Stringer appears at the end of the report : With reference to the last paragraph of the appointment directed to me personally, I have to report that -no matter?, appearing to affect the administration of justice as therein mentioned were disclosed during the course of the inquiry, and, therefore, that I have nothing to report thereon. Attached to the Commissioners' report is the finding of Superintendent A. H. Wright in the charge made by ox-Detec-tive-sergeant Mason against Detectivesergeant Rawle. Superintendent Wright says :

This charge was incidental in tho charges made by the ex-detective sergeant, against Superintendent Norwood and Inspector M'llveney, which were investigated by His Honor Mr Justice Stringer and myself, and by consent of the parties the evidence taken on the hearing of the last-mentioned charges was to be the basis of my decision. On tho charge against Detective-sergeant Rawle I find that the charge was not sustained. It is quite clear that Detec-tive-sergeant Ra-wle's conduct of the case against Millanta and Miles was C roper, that he elicited all the evidence riefed by Detective-sergeant Mason, and very properly objected to that officer expressing an opinion as to accused's guilt. The " material " in favor of accused, which Mason alleges was not brought out, was pr-t relevant, ami could not have'- been brought out for the prosecution.