QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
UNSIGNED STATEMENT TO CONSTABLE MR JUSTICE CALLAN'S RULING PRODUCTION IN COURT ORDERED (Per United Press Association) AUCKLAND, May 26. Holding that no grounds upon which privilege was claimed had been put forward Mr Justice Callan in the Supreme Court ruled that an unsigned statement made to a police constable should be produced in evidence during the hearing of a claim for £2OOO brought by a farmer against a sawmiller for the loss of plaintiff's wife in a motor accident. Mr North, for the defence, called Superintendent Till, of Auckland, and asked him to produce a statement made by the driver of the motor car to a police constable. Superintendent Till claimed privilege, saying that he had been instructed to do so. The statement was not signed and the maker of it was not a party to the action. His Honor: Well, Superintendent, with regard to your point that the statement is not signed, I take it that what counsel is endeavouring to prove is something said to the constable by the person who did not sign the statement. If the constable could remember what was said I would rule that he could give evidence. The further point that the person making the statement was not a party to the action before the court makes no difference. Who is your superior officer? Who has given you instructions to claim privilege? Superintendent Till: The Commissioner of Police. I have his memorandum here. His Honor said his view was that if privilege was to be claimed something further from a Minister of the Crown should be before the court. The grounds for making the claim, in the State's interest should be set out. While not expressing an opinion whether the claim for privilege was sound or not his Honor said he did not consider, in view of the method by which the claim was made, the court should take any action at all. The grounds upon which it was based were not placed before the court and he would rule that the statement should be produced. Superintendent Till then handed the document to Constable Huckstep, who had taken the statement, and who used portion of it in evidence.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ODT19370527.2.91
Bibliographic details
Otago Daily Times, Issue 23201, 27 May 1937, Page 10
Word Count
368QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE Otago Daily Times, Issue 23201, 27 May 1937, Page 10
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Otago Daily Times. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.