PRESS AND POLICE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 30 November 1927, Page 2

PRESS AND POLICE

UNJUSTIFIED ARREST AN OFFICIOUS INSPECTOR Remarking that ho thought tho arrest was unjustified, Mr Bingley, the iVlarylnbone Polico Court magistrate, dismissed the charge against Norman W. Ra.e, 30, a journalist '<ni tho staff of the London "Everting Standard," who was accused of obstructing the police. Rae was discharged and was allowed 20 guineas costs. It was alleged that whon the polico were- clearing the street after the fire at a film waste factory in Redhill street, N.W., on 9th September, when four lives were lost, Rae refused to go away and defied Inspector Simpkin to arrest him. p Rao denied the charge and complained of his treatment by the police after his arrest. "DISCREPANCIES" IN EVIDENCE Mr J. D. Cassels, K.C., addressing the magistrate for the defence said there were discrepancies in the police evidence, which wen; a must unsatisfactory feature of the case. It was admitted by the police inspector that lie told some workmen not to give "those fellows" any information. "What right had the police inspector to instruct a member of the public not to give pressmen information?" said Mr Cassels. "The police have important duties to perform. They are entitled to bo in complete authority, so far as the public aro concerned, wherever an incident like a fire has occurred, hut they are not censors of the Press. "If the giving of information at a certain spot causes an obstruction, tho police are entitled to move on people who are blocking the way or causing that obstruction.'' The magistrate said it was admitted that the firemen and salvage men wera not being obstructed. , When questions were being put to Rae by Mr Knight, for the prosecution, as to what happened in Redhill street, mo magistrate asked: Did you, to use tho inspector's own words, flout his authority?—No, sir. Mr Knight: The Press representatives are a little persistent, aro they not. The Magistrate: Of course they are; it is their duty to be. The evidence having concluded, the magistrate said: "All I need say is that, having weighed and considered all the evidence to tho best of my ability, the prosecution has failed to satisfy me that Rae did obstruct the inspector or that his .arrest was justified. He is discharged." Replying to Mr Cassels's application for costs, Mr Bingley said Rae had been put to vast trouble and expense. He was arrested, he thought, wrongly, .and would be awarded 20 guineas > costs. Commenting editorially upon' the above case, the London "Daily Chronicle" said:— "It is clearly in the interest of the public that reasonable facilities should be given to journalists to gather accurate news. ' But it is not primarily on this ground that we comment on the case that has just been decided against the police in favour of a journalist wrongfully charged with obstruction. In the main, the police and the man-in-the-street ave on tho best' of terms. But from time_ to time a salutary warning is needed that they exist for the sake of the public, and not the public for "them. For most purposes of life society rub.s along very well without any sort of uniformed 'interference, and it isi desirable that such interference should be reduced to a minimum. Avoidable arrests not to take place. "But when blame is deserved it should not always fall exclusively on the policeman. Magistrates themselves have been far too much inclined to encourage the police in the idea that their unsupported evidence is always sufficient. They have thus contributed to a feeling that, is growing among the pub Vic, that the police" are sometimes an added danger to London life."