POLICE CRITICISED BY SOLICITOR.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17780, 25 February 1926, Page 4

POLICE CRITICISED BY SOLICITOR.

HAVE TARNISHED NAME, HE DECLARES IN COURT.

“I feel strongly that the police have, in trying this case, created a precedent almost without parallel, and the good name of the whole force has been tarnished by it.’’ This was part of an attack which Mr Twyneham made upon the- Police in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon, when Edward O’Sullivan, licensee of the Star Hotel, Addington, was charged with selling liquor to William Miller and John Coutes while they were in a state of intoxication. John Francis Barry, barman of the hotel, was charged with supplying liquor to Miller and Coutes. The point which Mr Twyneham objected to so strongly was that Mrs O’Sullivan and Barry had given evidence against Miller when he appeared on a charge of being intoxicated while in control of a motor-car outside the Star Hotel. Coutes also had been charged with drunkenness. Mrs O’Sullivan and Barry gave evidence then that Miller and Coutes were drunk in the hotel and that drink had been refused them when their condition was noticed. “Now,” said Mr Twyneham, “Miller and Coutes are being called to prove that Mrs O'Sullivan and Barry had lied in their evidence which convicted Miller.” Mr Twyneham appeared for the defendants and Sub-Inspector Mathew prosecuted. After the Police evidence had been given Mr Twyneham said he. had notified the Police Superintendent and Inspector of the statement he was about to make. “Lawyers in Christchurch,” he said, “have for a long time known and been proud of the code of honour observed by police officials. If a client comes to us and tells us that he is called as witness for the Crown and that he may have to give evidence which may in some degree incriminate himself, we always have been able to tell clients that notwithstanding the fact that the police refuse to give any indemnity to a witness, we have never yet known a case where the police have afterwards assailed a witness upon whom they have relied, notwithstanding that he may have incriminated himself by his evidence. “I would be sorry to think that a revision of our policy in the future will become necessary. I prefer to assume that the action of the police has been taken through inadvertence. Apparently they had not the wit to foresee the position in which they would be placed. A week or two ago they came to the Court and asked the Court to believe that Barry and Mrs O’Sullivan were telling the truth. If the evidence they gave on that occasion was correct, then they had committed no offence and should never have been brought to Court. The Sub-Inspector now asks the Court to find that the witnesses upon whom he relied in the case against Miller were liars, although they were put forward by him as witnesses of truth. They should not be discredited in order that he should obtain a conviction. “It is with great regret that I have made these observations, but I would be failing in my duty to the Court, to the profession, and to the public if I had left them unsaid.” Barry, in evidence, said .he had served Miller and Coutes. but on observing tljeir condition he snatched the liquor from them. The Magistrate (Mr Young) dismissed the charges against O'Sullivan and Barry.