THE PATTERSON CASE.

NZ Truth, Issue 119, 28 September 1907, Page 5

THE PATTERSON CASE.

CONVICTED OF LOITERING AND INSULTING LANGUAGE. The Constable Convicted of Assault. Sergeant Dale Has a Narrow Escape.

The almost notorious cases of the Police versus Robert William Patterson, and Patterson versus the Police, reached a culminating point m Wellington Magistrate's Court on Monday, when Patterson was fined on the charges of loitering and insulting behaviour, but gained a conviction against Constable Turner on the charge of assault.

In the case of loitering, his Worship, Magistrate. Riddell, stated thao it was alleged to have been committed on August 28 m Manners-street. The by-law under which it was laid stated that no person should loiter or remain m any public street, footpath, or open public space after being directed to move on by any constable, peace officer, or Inspector of Nuisances. The defence was that Patterson was on private land, and therefore not subject to the by-law, also that a question of law had been raised and that the Court had no jurisdiction. Patterson had proved a license to use a space between Jackson's shop and the footpath. The land of Jackson was held under the Land Transfer Act, and Jackson's title to it was not questioned ; but as this piece of land was open to, and used by. the public, and was immediately adjoining; the footpath, the onus was on Patterson to show that he was at all times actually and wholly upon it when directed by the constable to move on and similarly afterwards when again asked to move on. The p;eneral evidence given showed that Patterson was MORE INCLINED TO EXAGGERATION than the constable, and his Worship preferred the policeman's statement as to Patterson's position on the .footpath. Patterson had failed »tb show that he did not come within the scope of the by-law. He would be convicted and ordered to pay a fine of 10s, with costs or Court, 7s.

In the case of insulting language against Patterson, his Worship' believed that defendant had used the language complained of before the constable arrested him. The charge was not of a serious nature, but the language was unnecessary, and m the circumstances caused the constable to act m a way which his Worship thought he would not have acted had Patterson been as polite as he stated he had been. It was sufficient to cause a breach of the peace, and he would enter a conviction and a fine of 10s.

In the case of Patterson v. Turner, m which the constable was charged with assault, his Worship considered that after Patterson had given his name and address the constable had no authority to arrest him for the use of insulting language. There was no authority, either m the Police Offences Act, 1884. or m any of the other Acts cited by counsel (Mr Herdman) for Patterson, to support such a course m a case of this kind. His Worship could only assume that the

CONSTABLE WAS SOMEWHAT EXCITED, owing to Patterson's behaviour, and m his excitement behaved somewhat differently to what he would have done had he been calmer. His proper course was to have proceeded by summons. That was provided for by section 15 of the Police Regulations, which stated that for minor offences the extreme course of apprehension and incarceration should be avoided when it was clear that a summons would ensure the offender being dealt with by a magistrate. Here the offender had given his name and address, and the offence was not a serious one. The constable had acted wrongly when he refused to agree to the request for a cab after the arrest had been made. Whether a cab had, or should not have, been used m taking a person under arrest to the Police Station depended wholly on circumstances, and constables must use their discretion m each particular case. But where the arrested person was

NOT A COMMON OFFENDER, but was sober and willing and able to pay for a cab. the request was reasonable and should be agreed to by the arresting constable. As to the force used by the constable, his Worship did not think it was excessive. Patterson had made no immediate complaint, nor had any witness given evidence m support of unnecessary force. His Worship thought this evidence had been exaggerated. It was clear an assault had been committed, but as Patterson was not wholly blameless, that must be taken into consideration m imposing a penalty. The constable would be convicted, fined 10s, and costs of Court 7s, with solicitor's fee £1 Is.

In the case of Patterson against. Sergeant Dale, his Worship thought it was only proper to assume that Dale considered Patterson under lawful arrest when he joined Constable Turner at the Bank of New Zealand corner. The crowd, the fact that the constable was m charge of a prisoner, and Patterson's excited condition, also his abusive manner, justified the interference of the sergeant. In the opinion of his Worship the cab was no place to inquire into the. charge ; the proper place to do that was at the Police Station, and his Worship was not prepared to say that m the circumstances Dale so identified himself with the arrest as to make himself responsible

FOR A DELIBERATE ASSAULT on Patterson. The arrest had not been declared illegal, and Dale stated that he was acting under the. Regulations m effecting the search.* But it seemed to his Worship that Dale had acted somewhat hastily m proceeding at once with the search. Patterson should have been asked to produce his property before the search started. His Worship considered the Sergeant's interference with Patterson amounted to an assault, but of such a trifling nature that it did not warrant the imposition of any penalty. The information was therefore dismissed, a solicitor's fee ef £1 Is being allowed*.