VERDICT NOT GUILTY

Taranaki Daily News, 18 August 1933, Page 9

VERDICT NOT GUILTY

BOOKMAKING ALLEGATION

CHARGE AGAINST D. SISARICH.

METHODS OF POLICE CRITICISED.

REPLY MADE BY THE JUDGE.

After 3 hours 20 minutes the. jury yesterday returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge against Dominik Sisarich, accused of carrying on business as a bookmaker at Stratford on March 8. When. the hearing was resumed yesterday morning no evidence was called for the defence. Tire Crown Prosecutor (Mr. R. H. Quilliam) did not address the jury. On behalf of Sisarich Mr. A. Coleman reviewed the case. He commented particularly on the part played by Constables Groombridge and Hodge. He pointed out that the former was a probationer constable and suggested the temptation was there to regard this work as a means towards promotion. Counsel did not mean the policemen were deliberately dishonest, but the fact remained that many persons did not consider the methods' they followed were fair. At least they were not the methods that one would, trust in everyday business. It was a vicious method of crime detection, likely to lead to serious consequences with a man not of strong moral fibre. There was a temptation for young probationer constables to get results at all costs. A man of strong moral fibre would rise above it, but a weaker man might succumb. The same comment applied to the part played by Constable Hodge when he visited Sisarich in ,1931. The constable had denied that he had Iris arm in a sling, or that he had suggested that he was a victim of the Napier earthquake. Nevertheless, how else could Sisarich have obtained that idea? In view of the possible effects of their work on the constables’ future counsel suggested the jury should weigh their evidence very carefully before deciding to accept it. Groombridge, having come into Court to give evidence of such methods, could not complain if the jury failed to find him 100 per cent, disinterested.

It would be idle for him to discuss with the jury whether or mot it approved of the law, said His Honour in summing up. The fact was that the law had been in force since 1920. If the public did not like it its remedy was to elect representatives to Parliament who would change it, but until that was done it was the duty of all law-abiding citizens to observe it—and he presumed the jurymen were all law-abiding citizens. His'Honour proceeded to analyse the evidence after pointing out that if the jury found- an-honest, reasonable doubt its duty was to acquit the prisoner. After, referring to the evidence regarding the telephone rings, His Honour said that singly they might not be very strong, but together they had some value. Constable Groombridge’s methods had been criticised, but his evidence was uncontradicted. It had been found that it was practically impossible to detect certain kinds of crime without the use of these methods, and commissions on the Police Force in England had approved them. In Great Britain and in the colonies these methods were used for the detection of certain crimes.