IMPORTANT POINT RAISED

Evening Star, Issue 22526, 19 December 1936, Page 12

IMPORTANT POINT RAISED

STATEMENTS TO POLICE ADMISSIBILITY AS EVIDENCE UNUSUAL POSITION IN COURT Tlie question was raised in the Police Court yesterday afternoon of the admissibility as evidence 'of statements given to the police by defendants. The refusal of Senior-sergeant Packer during the hearing of a licensing case to allow statements given by _ the defendants to be produced as evidence, and the insistence of the magistrate (Mr H. W. Bundle) that if counsel for the defendants were not allowed to examine them the case would not be proceeded with, brought about an unusual situation. the hearing eventually being adjourned sine die to enable the senior sergeant to place the matter before the superintendent. The case was one in which the licensee of an hotel was charged with selling liquor after hours, exposing liquor after hours, and keeping his premises open after hours for the sale of liquor; and two men were charged with being unlawfully on the premises after hours. All three defendants, who were represented by Mr A. G. Neill, pleaded not guilty, the > prosecution being conducted by Senior-ser-geant Packer. In the course of his evidence for the prosecution Sergeant Lean stated that the licensee and the two men charged with being on the premises were all under the influence of liquor. Mr Neill: You took statements from all three men, did you not? Sergeant Lean: Yes. Although they were intoxicated, I considered them capable of making statements. Mr Neill asked to see the statements, but Senior-sergeant Packer claimed privilege on the ground that they were official documents, and refused to hand them over. The Magistrate ruled that Mr Neill was entitled to examine the statements, but the senior sergeant persisted in his refusal, and explained that he could not produce them without the authority of his superior officer. The hearing was adjourned for a few minutes to allow the senior sergeant to consult Inspector Cameron. When he returned; Senior-sergeant Packer stated that in the _ absence, through sickness, of Superintendent Rawle, he had put the matter before Inspector Cameron, who had given instructions that the statements must not be produced. The Magistrate: That is absurd. They must be produced. Mr Neill expressed tho opinion that if tho statements had been favourable to tho police case they would have been produced. If this were not done the court could hardly be blamed for coming to the conclusion that they were in favour of the defendants. The magistrate said that as a matter of common justice the statements should be produced. He declined to proceed with the case until they were. Senior-sergeant Packer said, that in such cases the police were determined to fight to the last ditch. If the matter was to go further, he asked that the case be adjourned so that the superintendent could be subpoenaed. Mr Neill said he had raised the question to test the credibility of Sergeant Lean’s evidence. Senior-sergeant Packer again asked that tho case be adjourned, and suggested that Mr Neill subpoena the superintendent. Mr Neill: I refuse to subpoena him. Why should IP Senior-sergeant Packer again left the court to consult Inspector Cameron. “ We are no further ahead, sir,” he told the magistrate ou his 'return. “ The inspector told me that he has given his instructions and wants them carried out.” The magistrate said the case would not proceed. The documents were part of the police case, and if they wished it to go on they must produce them. “ The police appear to be under some misapprehension in this matter,” His Worship added. “ A statement to a police officer is, to a certain extent, a privileged communication, and no party has the right to call for it. If, however, in the course of a particular inquiry a statement is taken from a defendant and the charge proceeded -with, the statement becomes part of tlie police case, and must l>o produced. The sergeant has stated that the men were intoxicated, but were capable of signing statements. The credibility of the sergeant’s evidence is clearly at issue, and if the case is to go on the statements must be produced.” The Senior Sergeant reiterated that be had no alternative but to adhere to his refusal, and the case was adjourned sine die to allow him to put the matter before the superintendent.