Shooting of Police Officer

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 167, 17 July 1936, Page 3

Shooting of Police Officer

INQUIRY IN MELBOURNE

REPUTATION OF THE FORCE

MELBOURNE, July 8.

The complete exoneration of Superintendent J. O’C. Brophy, chief of the Criminal Investigation branch of the Victorian Police, was tho main feature of the report of tho Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Macindoo, who investigated the shooting of tho superintendent at Royal Park on the night of May 22.

The report on the whole was favourable to tho police, and, although criticism was made of part of the evidence of the Chief Commissioner of Police, Sir Thomas Blarney, Mr Justice Macindoc tempered that criticism by remarking that tho whole truth of the incident had not been told because Sir Thomas Blarney was “jealous of the reputation of the force.” Nevertheless, a variety of other issues raised by the judge’s report will probably demand Cabinet action.

Among other tilings, Mr Justice Macindoe’s report stated:—”l find that on the night of May 22 Superintendent Brophy went to Royal Park to meet an informer, who had said lie had information which, would be of use in assisting the police to investigate the activities of certain criminals. Superintendent Brophy engaged the ear of a Mrs Orr to take him. to the appointed place, and by a series of fortuitous circumstances he was accompanied by Mrs Orr, a Mrs Phillips and Mrs Orr’s chauffeur. Shot in Three Places “While awaiting the arrival of the informer two men came to tho car in which Superintendent Brophy and his companions wero seated. Both these men were armed and masked and attempted to hold-up the occupants of tne ear. Superintendent Brophy drew his own pistol and fired two shots. Tho masked men returned his fire, and in the course of tho shooting Superintendent Brophy was shot in three places. His right arm was fractured, and fie received a bullet wound in the cheek and an abrasion above the heart. The two bandits fired at and punctured one of the tyres of tho motor-car and then drove off. Superiucndent Brophy’s chauffeur attempted to follow, but, finding the tyre was punctured, was forced to stop. Superintendent Brophy was taken to St. Vincent’s hospital by a Mr Millard. . , .

“A suggestion was made that Superintendent Brophy had bceu guilty of scandalous conduct, and that it was possible that an enraged husband might have been responsible for the shooting. It was further suggested that he Avas guilty of improper conduct in taking female companions with him to such an appointment. Nothing Improper in Conduct. “Tho evideneo shows that Mrs Orr is a widow and a friend of Superintendent Brophy and his wife and daughter for many years. Mrs Orr is the licensee and occupier of a hotel in Eussell street and tho owner of tho car which was used on the nig'ht of May 22. Mrs Phillips is a very closo friend of Mrs Orr, a married woman, living on good terms with her husband and also a great friend of Superintendent Brophy and his family. The other occupant of the car, ono Maher, is Mrs Orr’s chauffeur and barman. Mr Phillips was called as a witness, deposed to his relations with his wife, and no suggestion was mado to him by anyone that lie was in any way enraged. “No suggestion was made against the moral character of Mrs Orr, Mrs Phillips, Maher or Superintendent Bropny; and I find it impossible to believe that Superintendent Brophy would take any woman with two other people to Eoyal Park to engage in any immoral conduct, while there appeared to be no obstacle to his making use of Mrs Orr’s hotel if he so desired. Ido not believe that there was anything improper in Superintendent Brophy taking tho women with him to meet an informer. The women would not be exposed to any danger from tho informer, who was obviously friendly. lu all the circumstances, I find that there was nothing immoral or improper in Superintendent Brophy’s conduct.” Commissioner’s Evidence After discussing in some detail the condition of Superintendent Brophy after his admittance to the hospital, Mr Justico Macindoo said that condition was responsible for tho varying statements which the superintendent made on the night of tho shooting. “I believe,” the report added, “that his telling Detective Boulton it was an accident was prompted by the belief that if ho said he was held up ho would

havo to disclose tho fact that women were with him in the car, and that such a disclosure, no matter how innocent

it was in fact, would lay these women open to scandalous comment.” Dealing with the evidence of Sir Thomas Blarney, the Judge said: ‘‘Sir Thomas Blarney says Superintendent Brophy told him he had met w'ith an accident, and there were two ladies with him at the time, whose names ho gave; and Sir Thomas Blarney says he believed it was an accident. Having regard to the fact that Sir Thomas Blarney knew the number and the nature of the wounds, I cannot accept his evidence that ho believed it was an accident. 1 am forced to tho conclusion that Sir Thomas Blarney was told the truth, and, being jealous of tho reputation of the force which he commands, he thought that reputation might be endangered if the whole truth was disclosed. That being so, I believo that Sir Thomas Blarney told Inspector McKerral the truth but told him to announce to the Press that Superintendent Brophy had met with an accident.”

False Announcement The second half of the report is devoted to aii examination of the conflict between polico and newspaper witnesses regarding the release of information of the shooting. Tho Judge found that the first announcement that Superintendent Brophy had met with an accident was admittedly false and that a sentence was written into tho press report after tho reporters had seen it. t The Judge further found that, as soon as Superintendent Brophy had described what had actually occurred to him, Sir Thomas Blarney and tho officers acting under him took tho necessary steps to investigate fully tho crime and to apprehend tho persons responsible for the shooting, although their methods might not havo appeared to bo as effective as those suggested by laymen. ,

A recent message from Melbourne states that Sir Thomas Blarney - had resigned