AN INQUIRY

Hokitika Guardian, 10 December 1940, Page 6

AN INQUIRY

CONDUCT OF POLICE. (Per Press Association —Copyright). WELLINGTON, Dec. 9. The personnel and the order of reference of tlie Commission of Inquiry which is to report on the conduct oi police, investigations in the case which came before the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court at Wellington on November 27, was announced tonight by the Minister in Charge ef the Police, lit. Hon. P. Fraser,. The case was that of a young woman, who had pleaded guilty to permitting the unlawful use of an instrument, and to attempting to conceal birth. Ihe members of the Commission are! Mr Justice Ostler, Judge of the . Supreme Court (Chairman), H. H. /Cornish, K.C., Solicitor-General, and Air H. O’Leary, K.C., President, of the New Zealand Law Society. •/ The remarks of the Chief Justice which gave rise to tho inquiry, were: “This case calls for strict inquiry. It calls, in my opinion, for something more than Departmental inquiries It calls for an inquiry by,a. competent tribunal of men who knew something about the conduct of justice in criminal cases.” In the first sitting of the House of Representatives, after the publication of those remarks in the press, Mr Fraser announced that, in view of the serious nature of tho "comment, lie felt it his duty to lose no time informing the House and the country that' an inquiry would be held at the earliest possible opportunity. That, .was not to be construed as a reflection on the police officers concerned, or on the Police l Force generally. ” 1 The Commission is to inquire into, and report on. the following matters: (1) “Do tho circumstances of the prosecutions disclose any impropriety in the conduct of the police officers concerned. If so in what did it consist? (2) In particular, hut without prejudice to the general nature of the enquiry: (a) Were the police officers who took a statement from the vo.ung woman in question under a duty to warn her: that she was not obliged to make any but', if she did make one, it might be used in evidence upon her trial ? (b) if the answer 5 to foregoing is “yes,” did police officers discharge that duty?; (c) if the answer to (b). is “no,” was the failure, or omission, to give such „a warning likely to induce .the

Voiium to make an, untrue admissioi •Vf' guilt?'’ (d) Was any promise, ex press or implied, given...to the womai by the police officers prior to, or a tixo time, of the making of the state month (e) If the answer to (cl) i if “yes,” what was the nature or eft'ec of such promise? Was it likely ti 'induce' the' woman, to make an un true admission of guilt? (f) Wa any threat, express, implied or con structiye, used by the police officer towards the woman prior to ,or„. a rffe'tiihe of her making of the state meut? (g) If the answer to -(f) i “yes,” what was the nature, or effect of. such threat? ..Was it likely to in duco the woman' tr make an untrui :admission of guilt? (h) Do the cir cumstances of, the- taking of tin Statement disclose that the conduct o the = police officers concerned was op pressiye, or inconsiderate, or such a: to impose undue physical or men talc-strain upon the woman. (i) I the answer to (h) is “yes,” was tin conduct of the police officers such a* to be likely to induce the woman tc make an untrue admission of guilt: fj) Was it a breach of faith, or otherwise unjust or unconscionable, on the part of the police to prosecute the woman.

(3) Is there any matter not covered by the foregoing that calls for comment of any kind iii connection with the conduct of the police in the case? • ’ ‘