Challenges Constables Method Of Getting Bet

Northern Advocate, 31 October 1949, Page 5

Challenges Constables Method Of Getting Bet

SENT to Kamo from Auckland to detect breaches of the Gaming Act a young Auckland policeman was closely crossexamined by Mr J. D. Gerard in the Whangarei Court this morning. Mr Gerard was appearing for Hugh Kennedy Sirl, Whangarei, stock agent, who pleaded not guilty to two charges.

The first was that he carried on the business of a bookmaker, and the second that he entered into a bet upon the result of a horse race, whereby he agreed to pay to the other party a sum of money, the amount of which was dependent on the result of the working of the lotalisator on the race.

Taylor’s evidence was that of a man who gave the impression of being a boilermaker when asked if lie was a policeman, said Mr Gerard. ENGLISH CASE QUOTED

Mr Gerard referred to the section of the Gaming Act which immunised police constables from prosecution. Under this section a policeman who lent himself to an offence to detect it could not be regarded as an accomplice, Mr Gerard admitted. The employment of spies by the Government was deprecated by an English judge, said Mr Gerard, quoting a case in the law reports. Evidence obtained by these methods was more likely to contain elements of inaccuracy. "CREATED PERSONALITY” The further a policeman went to get his evidence, the more suspect that evidence must be, Mr Gerard went on. Taylor had set out to create the impression that he was not a policeman, but a boilermaker. He set out to create a personality which was a lie, Mr Gerard submitted.

Constable S. T. Taylor, of Auckland, said he went to the Kamo Hotel on a Saturday and stood in the bar. He asked where he could get a Pet and the man with whom he had been talking went away and returned witn Sirl.

DID NOT ANSWER. Sirl said he heard the . police were coming up from Auckland and asked if witness was a policeman.

Taylor did not answer and Sirl kept on talking. Sir! took a 10/- bet from Taylor and also a bet from the man with whom the constable had been drinking. Sirl took another bet from Taylor and paid him £2 as a result of the race, allowing him to keep an extra sixpence as the horse had paid only £l/10/6. He noticed Sir] taking other bets in the hotel.

A week later he again went to the Kamo Hotel and saw Sirl and other men with racing papers listening to the radio.

"People are entitled to expect that the police will carry out the decent ways of our society,” he continued. The people in the Kamo Hotel were entitled to this decent conduct. By the way Taylor's evidence was collected, it was not worthy to be accepted by the court.

A man in the lounge said that Taylor was a police constable.

“BUTTED” IN. While Taylor and Sir! were drinking in the bar this man kept butting in and telling Sirl that Taylor was a police constable.

(Proceeding.)

Sirl said the boy did not look like a police constable. To Mr Gerard: Taylor said he was in the Army at Kamo for about 11 months and was overseas in the Air Force during. the war. He did not say he was a boilermaker on holiday from Auckland. He had never denied that he was a policeman. He was a boilermake before joining the police force. “What did you say when someone asked if you were a policeman?—Have another beer, or something?”

Taylor said people at the Kamo Hotel did not go round asking if he was a policeman. RANG BOARDINGHOUSE “Perhaps he is still a boilermaker now, and only saying he is a policeman,” Mr Gerard said.

He had asked Sirl to ring his boardinghouse to ascertain that he was Mr Taylor, witness continued. Sirl rang the boardinghouse and appeared to accept that he was not a policeman.

Taylor said he could have laid more bets with Sirl if Stewart had not obstructed him.

Before going to the Kamo Hotel, he had had a beer in the Blue Bar of the Whangarei Hotel, Taylor went on. “The Whangarei Hotel?” asked Mr Harley. “It’s the Commercial Hotel,” corrected Mr Gerard. FOR ANOTHER MAN Detective-Sergeant A. C. B. Wade gave evidence that Sirl said he had been taking nets for another man. He received nothing for this, and it was finished now. He had declined to state when he had ceased taking bets from another man. Detective-Sergeant E. W. Mahood corroborated this evidence. Mr Gerard said the question was whether the constable's evidence was sufficient to justify the two charges. Mr Gerard agreed with an English judge who stated that it was wrong for an offence to be committed by the police to detect another offence.