UNUSUAL CHARGE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21562, 5 August 1933, Page 8

UNUSUAL CHARGE

WIRELESS TALK SEQUEL MOTORISTS AND POLICE INFORMATION DISMISSED 'As a sequel to a broadcast talk on tnotoring, George Campbell appeared on summons before Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday charged with encouraging unknown persons on July 10 to obstruct constables in the//execution of their duty. The prosecution was brought under section 77 of the Police Offences Act, and defendant pleaded not guilty. Detective Stevenson said he was at his hoirie on the evening of July 10, and he tuned in his wireless set to station IZS. A speaker was dealing with motoring, and such subjects as thirdparty risk, insurance and accident claims. Witness heard the following statements ; — "And now, above all, when you have' an accident and the policeman arrives, and you are arguing with the other fellow as to whose fault it was, the first thing the policeman will want to do is to get a statement from you. Whatever you do, don't give him one. lYou have no need to make a statement or tell him anything except your name and address and the number of your car, afnd show him your licence. The policeman has no right to get a statement from you unless he tells you first that it may be used in evidence against you. When you make a statement to the policeman about any accident, that's where you hang yourself. When you are nervous and upset after an accident, you are liable to say anything. Tell the police you have nothing to say, except to your lawyer, Whatever you do, if you want to save yourself trouble, don't give the police a statement."^ "Stupid Advice to Give" "It was very stupid advice to give," said the magistrate. Witness went on to say the station announcer then said the talk was given by Mr. Campbell. Immediately at the conclusion of the address, witness wrote down the remarks. On July 14, with Detective Hayes, witness saw defendant at his place of business, and defendant commented that he had received a telephone call from an anonymous person, saying he would be reported to the Minister of Justice. He said he had told the proprietor of the station that he would take responsibility. When told that He might be charged, defendant said he considered his remarks to have been in order. H 6 had no explanation to make. Hfot Within the Section Continuing, witness said he later spoke with defendant by telephone, and asked y him if he would like to hear his reported' remarks. Defendant replied that he did not need to be told by the police, as he knew what he had said. 6o far as he was concerned, the matter was finished. Answering Detective-Ser-geant O'Sullivan, witness said it was essential that the police should obtain statements about accidents. Defendant's statements would be quite likely to obstruct the police, bjr causing motorists to refuse to give information. The magistrate said the section under which the prosecution was brought was never intended to operate in cases of such a kind. It was stupid of defendant to have given such advice, but the evidence given did not bring defendant within the section. "What I suggested was that a motorist should get a solicitor before making a statement," said defendant. "A man who tells the truth does not want a solicitor," said the magistate, in dismissing the information.