THE POLICE FORCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14223, 20 November 1909, Page 8

THE POLICE FORCE.

MR. DINNIE'S DEFENCE.

CHALLENGE TO MR. BISHOP. PRECONCEIVED OPINIONS." •1- 'f ■ ■'- [BY TELEGBAPJI. —rRESS ASSOCIATION'.] Wellington-, Friday. Commissioner Dinnie's reply to the report of Mr. H. W. Bishop on the administration of the police force is , a lengthy document, traversing Mr. Bishop's findings in detail. It'begins by alluding to the statement in the report that though there had been for several years urgent need for revision of the regulations, nothing had been done:" Mr. Dinnie's reply is that in August, 1906, he received" replies from the inspectors to a communication asking them for suggestions upon the regulations, and new ones were framed. An enormous amount of research was necessary to make them comprehensive, but by May, 1909, a draft was completed and sent to the printer. In August proofs were distributed to the inspectors, who perused and returned them by October, one- of them suggesting a conference. Evidence was given before Mr. Bishop that the chief clerk had for two years worked overtime on the draft.

MR. ARNOLD'S CHARGES. Mr. Dinnie next deals with Mr. Arnold's charges and seeks to show that the usual precautions were observed or that as soon as the real character of the men was discovered they were dismissed. In reply to Mr. Bishop's comment on the fact that good discharges were sometimes granted in cases of proved misconduct, he draws a distinction between a parchment discharge and a mere paper memorandum. Only the former, he 6ays, are any good; and would procure a man employment in another force, and these were not given. In other cases adversely commented on by Mr. Bishop Mr. Dinnie contends that the evidence does not bear out the criticisms. RELATIONS WITH INSPECTORS., Upon the passage in the report stating that there were strained relations between him and at least two inspectors, Mr. Dinnio says: "There has been no evidence disclosing the existence of any feeling between inspectors referred to and myself. Inspector O'Brien has apparently been harbouring a sense of resentment since the finding of the Commission of 1905, which reflected upon his administration, but the feeling has entirely been on his side, and I was not aware of it. As regards Inspector Cullen, there has never been the slightest friction of any description at any time. This is another of Mr. Bishop's misrepresentations." THE PROMOTION QUESTION. Upon the question of. dissatisfaction with promotions, Mr. Dinnie accuses Mr. Bishop of inconsistency in blaming him for promoting a man without an inspector's recommendation, and in the next sentence questioning the wisdom of promoting another, who said he had been so recommended. Mr. Dinnie quotes Commissioner Tunbridge to show that he was of opinion that some of the men were not fit for promotion, and says: "Out of some hundreds of men there are only three instances if Bishop can quote as having been, as he says, ' unaccountably passed over.' The question again arises whether Mr. Bishop or myself is the best judge as to the qualifications required in a sergeant. ...- "The suggestion by Mr. Bishop to alter the rank of station-sergeant to that of senior sergeant was provided for in the I draft regulations 12 months ago, so that ■ Mr. Bishop's alarm is quite unnecessary." | THE HEADQUARTERS STAFF.

"One would imagine," says Mr. Dinnie, that Mr. Bishop had devoted considerable time investigating the feeling regarding the headquarters staff. I would point out that no word of dissatisfaction appeared in the evidence until Mr. Bishop himself, on the first day of. the 'Commission,' stated: 'There is an extreme amount of dissatisfaction on the part of some members of the force in regard to the headquarters staff.' I have no hesitation in t stating," adds Mr. Dinnie, "that this was a most improper and biassed assertion. If Mr. Bishop wanted the truth he should not have led the witnesses. Howdid Mr. Bishop know, before any evidence was taken, that there was extreme dissatisfaction? He could only have got the idea directly or indirectly from some discontented member of the force, and I submit ; that as a fair-minded man he should have declined to listen to anything that was not given on oath and fair and above board. Beyond occasional reference to the promotion of some members of the staff to the rank of sergeant, Mr. Bishop never asked a question about them from Invercargill to Auckland, and there lie made the assertion for the first time that Sub-Inspector Wright's , promotion had caused dissatisfaction, and Inspector Cullen at once agreed with him. Why did not Mr. Bishop ask all the inspectors their opinion on his way through the Dominion? Apparently this was not wanted, as Mr. Bishop had made up his mind before the Commission opened, as evidenced by his statement at Invereargill. Mr. Bishon next asked about the headquarters staff, Wellington, and was assured by Inspector Ellison that ' prior to the sittings of this Commission he had heard no dissatisfaction.' Now, so far.as I can find in the evidence," continues Mr. Dinnie. "these were the only occasions on which Mr. Bishop put questions as to dissatisfaction regarding ♦he staff, Unless, as : 1 have said before, it was a question about the promotion of some of the sergeants/ As regards Sub-Inspector Wright, personally he made no inquiry, and there is not one word in the evidence except that volunteered by Sertreant Matheson and Constable Green. How, therefore, can Mr. Bishop say that he has deeply gauged the feeling on this point throughout the force? How can he say that 'Sub-In-spector Wright is without doubt a very capable departmental officer, but, for some reason or other, there is generally expressed distrust of him?' He goes on to say that ' since Sub-Inspector Wright's promotion in 1906 there has been simmering discontent in the force, and there will be found ample proof of it in. the evidence.'. I challenge anyone." say 6 Mr. Dinnie, "to show me the slightest; evi-dence-on the point. Such a question was never raised,- and there is no evidence on it beyond that already referred to. Mr. Bishop goes on to say that there -s 'a profound impression' that Sub-Inspector, Wright dominates the Commissioner and uses his influence to advance the interests of those favourable to himself, and states that he is not going to express his opinion as to whether that belief is well founded or not.; it would be difficult to prove, and he prefers to leave it at that ; but he ; s quite satisfied that a change must be made. As before pointed out, the only evidence tendered on the point was by two discontented men, who only advanced an opinion without, any proof, yet Mr. Bishon says there is "a profound impression," etc. Where did he find it? Who told him? Why . should Sub-Inspector Wright, who is excentionally qualified for the position he holds, be turned out of office on the unsupported testimony of two men and a preconceived opinion by Mr. Bishop and his character blasted as one who is to be distrusted? THE CHIEF DETECTIVE. Mr. Dinnie proceeds :—Mr. Bishop further states that he is not able to satisfy himself as to the necessity for the appointment of chief detective, and "imagines' that he is not, over- worked and hfs office is largely a sinecure. I might here remark that Mr. Bishop has no grounds for his imagination. The chief , detective has done good work since his appointment, and has fully justified it. He has successfully handled a number of important and. intricate criminal cases with credit to the Department and to himself. The result of his inquiries in one case alone jOfeviatcd a pending prosecution, .which

.would have cost'*the >; country hundreds of pounds... exception lias been taken to the appointment throughout the..inquiry.. On. the contrary, the chief detective at Auckland said that it had been - justified by results, and was a very .good appointment. ."■ - "."'- ' ..'.• -:'J

PUNISHMENT FOR'DRUNKENNESS

On the question of lenient punishment for drunkenness Mr. Dinnie says:"Mr. Bishop must know, having examined the defaulters' sheets, that the regulation he quotas has never been literally enforced since it was made in 1887, and for very good reasons. There are so many degrees of what may be considered drunkenness on the part of police officers, and so many different circumstances which govern the quality of the offence, that it would be manifestly unfair to treat them all alike. Each case has been considered on its merits, and I may here remark that what is termed drunkenness, from a police regulations point of view, is a very different thing to the ordinary acceptance of that word. In fully 90 per cent, of the charges of drunkenness against members of the force civilians would have no hesitation in saying that the. member charged was quite sober; but. from the police point of view, if he has signs of liquor on him at all he is considered unfit for duty, and therefore drunk within the meaning of the regulations. Mr. Bishop refers to the extraordinary inequality of treatment applied to such cases, but with the above explanation it will be seen how ridiculous it would be to apply a universal punishment where Circumstances differ. In every respect I have followed the practice adopted in every force I have had experience of and also that adopted by my predecessor in this force. Why did not Mr. Bishop compare my action with that of any of my predecessors in dealing with such cases to justify his assertion that I have been lenient, instead of simply expressing his own opinion? Since, I assumed charge of this force I have dispensed with the services of no less than 33 men who brought discredit on the service through drunkenness and who were taken on in my predecessor's time practically without inquiry." Mr. Dinnie also advances argument to 6how that the Commission did not approach its undertaking with an open mind. He points out that he is responsible for the appointment of 429 out of 761 officers, and that on the finding of the Commission the force is efficient and it is free from bribery and corruption, and that everything is good, except the man responsible for the results.

POLITICAL INFLUENCE. NEVER HAD 'LESS EFFECT THAN '; ' . . ' NOW. [BY TELEGRAPH.—SPECIAL COBHESPONDENT.] Wellington, Friday. . In his reply to Mr. Bishop's report Mr. Dinnie, Commissioner of Police, refers to the allegation of political influence in connection with the appointment of a constable.

Mr. Bishop, in referring to the matter, said: " One of the worst cases that I have come across in connection with laxity ■. in admitting men to the police force is that of a man named J. D., who was admitted as a probationer on November 15, 1905, and sworn in on December 22, 1905. There is an extensive file relating to this case, and I have gone carefully through it, and the profound impression is left upon my mind that had it not been for the pressure brought by a then member of. Parliament the man would never have been accepted. There are no less than three letters on the file from Mr. R. M. Houston, M.H.R., dated April 15, 1903, October 1, 1903, and September. 20, 1905, strongly recommending the man for selection. The inquiries about him were never satisfactory." ;* Mr. Dinnie replies: " The file in this case distinctly shows that the person vn question, J. D., wrote for an application form on February 23, 1903. The form was sent him on February 27, 1903. He /filled it up on May 4, 1903, and it wasreceived in this office on May 11, but oh April. 15, 1903, Mr. Houston wrote recommending J. D., for appointment. No reply appears to have been sent him. Inquiry was made by Sergeant Moon into applicant's character on June 2, 1903, in accordance with the system then in vogue. The sergeant's report was that applicant bore a good character and his army certificates were satisfactory. His name was placed on the list of eligible candidates by ex-Commissioner Tunbridge on June 9, 1903,; without any further inquiry. All this occurred prior to my taking up the duties of Commissioner of Police. On

October. 1, 1903, Mr. '■> Houston wrote 10 the following effect: —' I shall as teem it a favour if you could do anything for this young man.' On October 3, 1903, a reply was sent him that ' as the candidate name had only been placed on the list during the previous June, it would be some considerable . time before he would

be selected for employment in the police force.' There were- a great many applicants at this time, and in consequence J. D.'s; name remained on the list .or over two years before his turn came. Mr. Houston wrote again on:> September 20, 1905, asking if anything could be done for applicant, and was informed that J. D. would; be called upon to pass the medical examination during the next few months. He eventually passed the medical examination and was taken on as a probationer on November 15, 1905, and sworn in as constable on December 22, 1905. It will be seen that the man was really accepted by my predecessor on the production of satisfactory discharges and the late Sergeant Moon's report as to character. Mr. Bishop has suppressed this, although it is disclosed by the Departmental file. Mr. Houston's letters had nothing to do with the matter, and it is, to say the least of it, grossly misleading to remark that 'political influence was the deciding factor.' Seeing the appointment was not made for two years and seven months after application, it is difficult to conjecture how Mr. Bishop arrived at such a conclusion. Mr. Houston was unknown to me. Further, on May 15, 1907 r he wrote complaining that his recommendations in respect to a candidate did not receive favourable

:onsideration. Inter alia, he U6ed these

words: 'This seems on a par with any case I bring before you, and it seems strange that everything I recommend to you has to be inquired into.' Surely, it will be at once conceded from these remarks that Mr. Houston's political influence had not availed him anything, and the 'profound impression' left upon Mr. Bishop's mind is the result of misconception."

In further repudiating the suggestion of political influence, Mr. Dinnie says:— " Mr. Bishop said :'But I think the most mischievous direction in which political influence has operated has been in inducing the enrolment of men into the force without sufficient inquiry. I have not the slightest doubt that the word of a member has gone very far in many cases. I am equally sure that in very few instances has a member had sufficient personal knowledge of the applicant to justify his action.' " Mr. Dinnie's observation in this connection is: "I specially produced to Mr. Bishop- a number of files containing letters from members and replies thereto with the object of entirely disproving such an assertion sis that made by him. In fact, I invited him to my office to search the files, but apparently he had no desire to avail himself of the opportunity, as he did not visit the office at all. A more unwarrantable suggestion than that made by him is inconceivable. There was not a tittle of evidence before him from which he could draw such a conclusion, and I challenge him to quote a single instance justifying his allegation. There never was a time in the history of the police force when political influence had less effect." -~_..