Brophy Exonerated

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 170, 3 July 1936, Page 5

Brophy Exonerated

ROYAL PARK CASE Report of Judge Macindoe Before Parliament COUNSEL THREATENED (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Received 3, 9.30 a.m.) MELBOURNE, July 2. The report of Judge Macindoe, who inquired into the shooting of Superintendent J. O’C. Brophy at Royal Park on May 22 was tabled in Parliament to-day. The report found no impropriety on the part of Mr Brophy in taking two women when he went to meet the informer. There was nothing immoral or improper in Mr Brophy’s conduct. The report of Judge Macindoe, who inquired into the shooting of Superintendent J. O’C. Brophy at Royal Park on May 22 was tabled in Parliament to-day. The report found no impropriety on the part of Mr Brophy in taking two women when he went to meet the informer. There was nothing immoral or improper in Brophy’s conduct.

Dealing with the evidence of Sir Thomas Blarney, Police Commissioner, the Judge said that having regard to the nature and number of the wounds, he could not accept Sir Thomas’s statement that he believed it was an accident when it was first reported to him. “I am forced to the conclusion that Sir Thomas was told the truth—that Mr Brophy was held up and shot—and I believe that, being jealous of the reputation of tho force he commands, ho thought that its roputaion might be endangered if tho whole truth were disclosed,” said tho Judge. Judge Macindoe commented upon the contradictions in the evidence of the reporters at interviews at which information regarding tho shooting was sought. He did not believe Commissioner Blarney ever said that no step,) were being taken to investigate the shooting. The police were in possession of very few facts which would lead to the identification of the criminal. He was satisfied that Brophy’s original story of the accident was prompted by his desire to safeguard the reputation of the women who were with him when he was shot. JOURNALISTS SHADOWED.

Just before the police inquiry report was submitted to Parliament to-day, Mr McKenzie (Labour) made a statement in which ho referred to the vendetta between tho Melbourne Press and the police. He said that since the inquiry certain Melbourne journalists were being shadowed by police officers. .Mr McKenzie said that Commissioner Blarney, in reply to a question earlier in the week, admitted that one journalist, who was suspected of a certain offence, had been placed under surveillance. “It is obvious,” said Mr McKenzie, “that the suspicion was that the journalist was obtaining information from certain members of the police force. The police have been camping on the tail of the journalist’s car and following it all over the suburbs. When the journalist became aware of the procedure he led the police on a hide and seek expedition all over Melbourne. “It is a sinful waste of public money to take the police from their regular work for this sort of thing,” said Mr McKenzie. It was revealed to-day that during tho sitting of tho Police Commission threats by telephone and anonymous letters were received by Mr L. E. B. Stretton, counsel assisting tho commissioner, and Mr W. Ham, counsel for tho “Herald” newspaper, warning them to bo careful or their houses would be bombed. Mr Ham received three telephone messages and a letter, and Mr Stretton two telephone messages. At tho inquiry both severely cross-examined police witnesses, demanding the name of the informer whom Mr Brophy went to see on the night of tho shooting. The name was revealed to the Judge alone.