POLICE AND PUBLIC.

Observer, Volume XXXII, Issue 52, 7 September 1912, Page 3

POLICE AND PUBLIC.

Some Little Irregularities,

DETECTIVE Halke and Constable Lander lately had occasion to question a witness in the "Soultoria" case before the case was brought to court. The fact gave rise to a highly interesting discussion relative to the methods of police officers m dealing with witnesses or principals in cases to be heard. It appears that, in regard to this particular witness, the police officers made enquiries without informing the witness that anything he said might be used against him in court. This having been ascertained, Mr Earl formally objected to the evidence. It was established that the person involved had been arrested and had been then crossmiestioned by the police without the warning. The jury, therefore, was instructed to disregard the evidence, so that the careful preparation of the police, in this particular instance, was of no avail in their case. * * * The Judge's most important remark in connection with this incident was that he hoped the police would not adopt the practice of cross-questioning accused persons,* " otherwise th« introduction of the third degree might be looked for." As a matter of fact, the action of any police officers in badgering a witness or a principal m a case before hearing is a mild example of the third degree system by which the police assume that a man is guilty until he is proved innocent and extort by police inquisition a confession of guilt. As it is apparently not illegal for a police officer, to., constitute himself a court of enquiry, it should certainly be made illegal. The primary duty of the police is not to make " cases " but to prevent crime. If even a mild imitation of the dreadful methods of the third degree is permitted, the boasted " liberty of the subject" and the fairness of British procedure is at once destroyed. The unpleasant methods of the New Zealand police in breaking the law in order to obtain convictions are to be deprecated. We have had some bright examples of this lately, in which detectives have made bets with bookmakers in order to prove that the bookmakers have broken the law. The fact that the detectives were the cause of the breaches of the law does not seem to worry anybody. It might be easy to prove that police officers who by the exercise of ingenuity obtain hearings against alleged breakers of the law are quite as partial to "having a bit on " as the average citizen. It might further be proved that some police officers are very careful in their selection of breakers of the law, and do not necessarily interfere if they -are themselves clients of law-breakers. * . * * It is a departmental habit to aid and abet police officers to break the licensing law and to supply them with the necessary cash. In very numerous cases police probationers, selected for their innocent appearance, have been despatched to No License districts with the intention of obtaining convictions. The method is simple. The probationer spends money and illeg- . ally procures liquor for self consumption. Having instigated the sly-grog seller to commit a crime, and having committed a crime himself, he brings an action and obtains a conviction. If it is right and proper for a police, officer to do this, it is equally right and proper for him to arrange with a man -whom he suspects to be a housebreaker, to assist him in carrying out a burglary in order that he may afterwards incriminate him. * * * If these offences by the police are condoned, they will naturally become more fre•queht. The police it must be assumea are as a force an honourable body or men, and it is not at all necessary that .any of them should adopt tactics which are disreputable, even if they are allowed. Zeal and keenness a. qualities that are admirable in the police, but excess of zeal, which lays them open to the accusation that they do not "play the game" should be absolutely prohibited by police regulations. If as the judge in the case ■quoted admitted, a police officer need 4

not warn the subject of his inquisition that "evidence" given out of court may be used against him, then it is high time the law interfered and made it an offence for a police officer to act as a court of inquisition, in order that his "case" may be sound (from his point of view). The method, moreover, is a direct invitation to the interviewed to commit perjury, it is of no earthly service in the detection of crime, and it is not •" clean." A man of high character and fairness would despise the use of irregular methods, and it is refreshing to know that no judge of the Supreme Court really countenances the employment of doubtful methods by the guardians of the law.