CITIZENS AND CRIME

Taranaki Daily News, 22 April 1932, Page 7

CITIZENS AND CRIME

DUTY TO INTERVENE. WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES. Hundreds of law-abiding citizens in Auckland recently were witnesses oi violence, destruction and looting, and many of them must have wondered whether, according to the letter of the law, they had a right to interfere on their own initiative or were under a duty to do so. This legal catch-question, which probably not one layman in a hundred would be able to answer with any certainty, is settled, says the New Zealand Herald, in an opinion that has been prepared by an Auckland barrister, who shows that the citizen has both a right and a duty to intervene, using force if necessary. - It has always been the policy of the law, the opinion states, and it is a part of the common law of New Zealand, that citizens are not only authorised, but charged with a. duty, to commission of crimes or the disturbance of the peace under all circumstances. A common but erroneous belief is that this duty arises only when a private, citizen is specifically called upon by the civil authorities to aid in the suppression of violence or the suppression of crime. On the contrary, it is as much the duty of every private citizen, as it is of every police officer, to prevent disorder or the commission of crime. ‘'The Crimes Act specifically preserves all rules and principles of the common law which justify or excuse acts done by citizens in protection of the law. The same Act goes further, and expressly authorises private citizens to arrest without warrant persons found committing such acts as occurred in the recent rioting and looting. In particular, ex-, press authority is provided m the Act, lustifying citizens in interfering to prevent the continuance or renewal of breaches of the peace, and for the detention of any person committing or about to join in or renew such breach of the peace. These statutory provisions are embodied in the law of the country to amplify and make clear the common law of England, which ?s of course the common law of New Zealand as well. The opinion quotes from a charge delivered to the Bristol grand jury in 1832 by Lord Chief Justice Tindal, as one oi the clearest expositions of the common law on the subject. This lays down the principle that the right and duty o f maintaining order must be used with discretion, and that no more force must be employed than is necessary to effect the purpose intended. Provided the. circumstances do seem to justify the degree of force used, the person using such force is excused from the consequences, because he is acting in accordance witn and in support of the law. In other words, if his duty is discharged bona fide and with discretion, not negligently and carelessly, the citizen who acts on h;s own initiative when neeecsary to protect the peace or prevent crime will be supported by the law if any untoward consequences should ensue.