CHARGES AGAINST POLICE

Evening Star, Issue 22351, 29 May 1936, Page 8

CHARGES AGAINST POLICE

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL AFFAIR INSPECTOR AND CONSTABLES [Per United Press Association.] GISBORNE, May 29. Charges against members of the Police Eorce and their consequent repercussions, were ventilated before the Acting Chief Justice, Mr Justice Reed, in the Supreme Court this morning, when an application was made for a writ of prohibition and certiorari restraining the Police Board inquiry from proceeding with the hearing. Outlining the position, the Crown Prosecutor, Mr F. W. Nolan, appearing for the department, explained that in August last an inquiry was held by Inspector Martin into charges against Constable Hendren, whose dismissal from the force was recommended by the inspector. Hendren appealed, and the board varied the recommendation by advising the reduction of Hendren’s seniority. During the hearing of the appeal, Constable Scandrett made a statement regarding the conduct of Inspector Martin, and as a result both Scandrett and Hendren appeared before Inspector Lander, charged with making a false statement. The charge was held proved and dismissal was recommended. There had been considerable delay in hearing the issues, and the appeal to the hoard was interrupted by the commencement of the present proceedings. Mr L. T. Burnard, for the constables, said they had stated at the inquiry that they saw Inspector Martin in a car with a woman, and the w’hole question was whether the inspector or the constables were to be believed. At the inquiry he had cross-examined with the object of discrediting the inspector’s evidence. His Honour: There is a limit to which such cross-examination should go. The whole tone of your questions leaves the impression on my mind that you were attempting to do as much harm as possible to Martin. I do not know whether you wore instructed to give the inspector what you could, because he had prosecuted one of these men, but that is the impression left on my mind. Mr Burnard denied that this was his intention, and went on to refer to a charge previously preferred against the inspector' of indecent exposure. Mr Nolan interjected that this charge had been withdrawn by the court at Mr Barnard’s request, and Mr Burnard said it had been impossible to proceed as his witnesses had been interfered with by the representatives of the Police Department. After further argument the application was dismissed.