POLICE AND MAGISTRATE

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 December 1936, Page 14

POLICE AND MAGISTRATE

PRODUCTION OF STATEMENTS. [per press association.] DUNEDIN, December 18. The refusal of Senior-Sergeant Packer during the hearing of a licensing case to-day, to allow statements given to the police by the defendants to be produced as evidence and the insistence of the Magistrate (Mr. H. W. Bundle, S.M.), that if the solicitor for the defendants were not allowed to examine them the case would not be proceeded with, brought about an unusual deadlock in the city police court. The case was one in which the licensee of a 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 after hours on the premises. All three defendants, who were represented by Mr. A. G. Neill, pleaded not guilty. In his evidence for the prosecution, Sergeant Lean said 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 w’ere 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 intimated that in the absence through sickness of Superintendent Rawle, he 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 the opinion that if the statements had been favourable to the 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 defendant.

The Magistrate: As a matter of common justice, the statements should'be produced. I decline to proceed with the case until they are. 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 the case be adjourned, and suggested that Mr. Neill subpoena the Superintendent. "Mr. Neill: I refuse to subpoena him. Why should I? Senior-Sergeant Packer again left the Court to consult Inspector Cameron. “We are no further ahead, sir,” he told the Magistrate on his return. “The Inspector told me that he has given instructions and wants them carried out.” The Magistrate: Well, the case will not proceed. The documents are part of the police case, and if you wish it to go on you must produce them. “The police appear to be under some misapprenhension in this matter,” said the Magistrate. “The statement to the police officer is to a certain extent a privileged communication and no party has the right to call for it. If, however, in a particular enquiry a statement is taken from the defendant and the charge is proceeded with, the statement becomes part of the police case, and must be produced. The seigeant 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 repeated that he 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.