NEEDLESS HUMILIATION.

Observer, Volume XXVII, Issue 39, 15 June 1907, Page 3

NEEDLESS HUMILIATION.

Alleged Outrage on an Accused Person.

IT is an established principle of British law that every man is to be regarded as innocent until ho is proved to be guilty. Generally speaking, too, the practice is made to conform to the principle. There are, however, exceptions to this, as to other rules, and when they happen it is as well that attention should be called to them, lest they should have time to become crystallised into precedents. One such exception occurred the other day, in the case of a man who was arrested in Auckland on suspicion of having committed an offence in Taranaki, and demands prompt notice.

The person who had the unhappy experience was one Allan Cameron, who appears to have been in the employ of an Auckland firm as a canvasser in Taranaki. Cameron was charged with having stolen a horse, gig, aud harness, valued at £35, from an Eltham firm. In short, he was alleged to have hired the horse and gear at so much a day, and then converted them to his own use by giving them to another firm in part payment for a motor car. Upon this charge he was taken before the Stipendiary Magistrate at New Plymouth. But before the case had gone very far it broke down utterly. Cameron was able to produce an account rendered to him in his accuser's name, billing him for the actual purchase of the horse and harness at £33. For the complainant the bowl-out was complete. He declared that he had no recollection of sending or writing the document, though the handwriting resembled his. The Magistrate, however, was satisfied that the matter had been treated as one of civil credit, and therefore dismissed the case.

As against his accuser, Cameron may possibly have a civil remedy for the indignity he suffered. But worse remains behind, for which he has no remedy at all. Bis treatment at the bands of the police or gaol authorities, according to the account put forward on his behalf, demands the most serious inquiry. It is stated that when being conveyed from Auckland to New Plymouth he was handcuffed to a convicted prisoner— first on the journey from Mt. Eden Gaol to the steamer at tbe Manukau, and again on the trip

from the Breakwater to New Plymouth. In other words, a person who had not yet been put on trial was treated as though he were already a convicted felon. If this statement can be substantiated, it follows that one of first axioms of the law was glaringly set at naught. Such an allegation is of serious moment to every person in the community, and should be made the subject of searobing investigation by the Justice Department.

That Cameron has since been able to establish his innocence is really beside the question. Even if he had ultimately been proved to be guilty, the principle would still hold good. All that the authorities were entitled^ to do was to hold him, either by personal detention or by means of bail, till he could be brought before the court. Had he attempted to escape from custody, there might have been some excuse for securing him by handcuffs, but of this there appears to be no suggestion. Under the circumstances alleged, there is absolutely no justification for putting in manacles a person who is merely charged with an offence, and still less for the added humiliation of fastening him to an actually convicted felon.

Possibly it may be proved, when the matter comes to be inquired into, that the indignity inflicted upon Cameron was the unauthorised act of some overzealous official. That, however, would be poor satisfaction to Cameron, or to any other person placed in a similar position. Policemen or gaol warders ought to be aware of the extent of their powers, and only men of judgment and experience should be entrusted with duties that involve the personal rights of the public. For Cameron was, at the time of his humiliation, merely a suspected member of the public. Similarly, anyone in the community is liable to have an unfounded charge made against him at some time or other. That he should incur the danger of undergoing such scandalous treatment as is alleged to have befallen Cameron would be intolerable. The personal liberty of the possibly innocent must be safe-guarded at all hazards.