“STAR CHAMBER TRIAL” ?

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 21 February 1931, Page 4

“STAR CHAMBER TRIAL” ?

SYDNEY POLICE STIRRED PROTEST AGAINST 'INQUIRIES DETECTIVE’S OUTBURST x Police circles 1 iii- New South Wales have been stirred during the past week by two incidents which have brought' into the limelight the Departmental procedure .in probing breaches of the Police Regulations. One incident was the charging of Constables Edmunds , and Jones with drunkenness, offensive language and other charges before the Central Police Court and the subsequent withdrawal of the .charges'and the institution of a Police Department inquiry instead; ancl the other the outburst of a detective sergeant, at the Parramatta Quarter Sessions,, who declared that “under the notorious Section K of the Police Regulations. a man could be hanged for simply breathing God’s fresh air.”

STRIPPED OF UNIFORM

The first case has aroused considerable public interest, as it is the first time that a police-constable has been charged in open Court for many years. In making the charges last week, the police prosecutor at, the Central Police Court declared that Edmunds and Jones had, while themselves under the influence of liquor, arrested two men in Belmore Park for drunkenness, and when reprimanded by the inspector of police had used offensive language to him. Edmunds demanded that the inspector should charge him with being drunk. He was stripped of his uniform, placed in the dock at the stilt-ion. and later sent to the cells.. <|° nes was similarly treated, A doctor examined bo(h constables at the time.

When the two constables came before the Court an adjournment Atfas granted uutil this week, but, when again called, the Crown (virtually the Police Department) withdrew the charges, but added that a Departmental--inquiry, would-be held. To this. Edmunds and Jones objected on. the grounds} that the”- would not receive-a fair trial. It was cntended that,-as -thev had been charged in open Court. :he Department should go on with the case instead of sheltering behind the closed doors of the Departmental inquiry, where rules of evirience were, according ;to -Edmunds’ counsel, conspicuous by .their absence. The magistrate had no alternative, since no evidence was offered for the prosecution, but to dismiss the case against the two constables. _ i The Police ■ Department inquiry is now* ■ being “held', '-but already a large number of the witnesses who have been called have refused to give evidence ex. cept in open Court. .. CONVICTED AND DISRATED

The outburst of the detective sergeant at Parramatta followed his evidence in a betting case.: In cross-examination ho was asked had he ever been before a Police Departmental inquiry, charged with accepting money from illegal betting shops. The detective sergeant admitted that'certain charges were made, and; that though he denied them strenuously, and brought reliable witnesses to prove his statements, he had been disrated and sent to an outlying division. f: The charges which had been made against him, said the detective sergeant, did not refer to betting, but were part of the notorious section K of the c’o.'ire Regulations, which was a dragnet section. by which a man could “be hanged for simply breathing God’s fresh aid.” “It was a Star Chamber trial. No one was called to give, evidence agaist me, but a statement was produced, which was made by a man who had been convicted of theft, assault and perjury. On that statement was convicted and disrated.” Such were two of the incidents which have provoked much criticism of the Police Departmental methods in Sydney. These have come on top of several' other similar cases during the past two years. The Police Association, representing the non-commissioned officers and men of the force, are asking the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the methods of the Department in disciplining the members of the force. A big body of public opinion is behind the movement for the Royal Commission.