POLICE CONTROVERSY

Greymouth Evening Star, 24 April 1935, Page 4

POLICE CONTROVERSY

HAIR-SPLITTING RULINGS.

SYDNEY April 12.

Among the many interesting questions raised and discussed at the Police Conference last week was the matter of compensation for injuries. It seems that by the Police Regulation Act of 1923 the Commissioner of Police has the final right to decide, in case of accidents, whether a man was on duty or not when injured; and that if he was not “on duty” neither the man nor his relatives can get any compensation. Of course, like all Departmental officials, our Commissioners of Police have thought it desirable or necessary to expend the Departmental funds as sparingly as possible, and as a natural consequence their interpretation of the phrase “on duty” had been sometimes extremely rigid and narrow. For instance, it has been ruled that a policeman “walking his beat” is not “on duty” unless and until he is actually preserving the peace or arresting a law breaker. Thus it has been laid down that if a policeman were on his beat, and a mator car ran into the footpath-and killed him. he could not be said to have been “on duty,” because he was doing nothing at the time, and therefore the Department would not be liable for compensation to his dependents. This seems a really outrageous decision and some of the members of the force resented it extremely. One of them wanted to know if a policeman on his beat was supposed to be there for the benefit of his health. “I think.” he added, “if that man went into an hotel for a drink they would soon let him know if he was on duty or not.”

These were imaginary cases, but one actual occurrence was quoted of a striking nature. Constable Stephenson was detailed for duty at Newtown Stadium. He went up to the building in a Police Department car, and was walking round to the door at which he was to enter when a motor cycle ran into him and killed him. The Commissioner held that Stephenson was not “on duty” at the time, and therefore the Department was not liable for compensation. Mr Cosgrove, the energetic general secretary of the Police Association, took the matter up and interviewed the Commissioner. COMMISSIONER’S ARGUMENT.

The Commissioner’s answer seems little better than an ingenious quibble. He said that the two policemen killed on the Harbour Bridge were directed to go there, and to remain stationed there, and so they were killed while “on duty.” Constable Stephenson, though he had been directed to go to Newtown Stadium and keep order there, was not “on duty”— he was only on his way to the Stadium —when he was killed. “He was no more on duty,” said the Commissioner, “than any other member of the public going to the Stadium to take part in the proceedings or to witness a combat.” / That/.-vyus . the -.only answer that Mr Cosgrove could get, for the Commissioner evidently did not think it necessary' to consider the point that, as Stephenson was only crossing the road to get to the Stadium, the order to go “on duty” there wap the cause of his death. Naturally the members of the 'force were exasperated at this ingenious hairsplitting. It was in the light of such painful experiences that the conference last week carried unanimously a resolution to the effect that the judgment of the Commissioner of Police as to whether a man was “on duty” or not when injured should be subject to revie-w by the Police Appeals Board, and that the case might, if' necessary, be carried io the District Supreme Court.

It is to be hoped, i» the interests of justice and for the sake of the moral of the police force, that some attempt will he speedily made to rectify this intolerable state of things. Surely it is time for the Department to recognise that a policeman is “on duty" so long as he is carrying out his instructions, expressed or implied, and that it is responsible for him accordingly.