RIGHT OF THE POLICE TO TAKE FINGERPRINTS

Wanganui Chronicle, 20 August 1947, Page 6

RIGHT OF THE POLICE TO TAKE FINGERPRINTS

MEMBERS OF HOUSE DIFFER

(P.A.) Parliament Bldgs., Aug. 19. The Police Force Bill was given further consideration in committee, in the House of Representatives today, discussion centring mainly on the somewhat controversial clause which gives the police power to take the fingerprints, or photograph, or any any other particulars necessary, for identification of a person held in lawful custody at a police station. Mr. F. Langstone (Govt., Roskill) said that it was wrong for the police to have power to take a person's fingerprints before a conviction was entered. He did not think the House should pass legislation which would give super powers to the police, but if a person consented to have his fingerprints taken that would be a different matter. Mr. W. S. Goosman (Opp., Piako) said he agreed with the member for Roskill and suggested that a person's fingerprints should be taken only by the order of a magistrate or by consent of the person concerned The Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) said the point at issue was whether fingerprints should be taken at a police station or in prison. He did not see that the taking of fingerprints would put great hardship on anyone, except, perhaps, on innocent persons' who came into contact with the police for the first time. Mr. J. R. Hanan (Opp., Invercargill) suggested that the clause should be amended so that the taking of fingerprints involved only those who were detained for offences involving dishonesty or violence. The clause, as it stood, was an encroachment on personal liberty. , Mr. G. H O. Wilson (Govt., Palmerston North) said he was amazed, surprised and shocked that the member for Manawatu should have suggested that all persons should be fingerprinted. If that were done it would be the first step toward a police State. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr. Parry) said that if it were good for the police to have every facility in order to prove the guilt of a person, or to trace a person, why should not everyone have their fingerprints taken voluntarily? Mr. Langstone: There would be a revolution!

Mr. Fraser said that in the matter of assisting the police in the detection of crime, no person should object to helping them: We had to trust the police to use their discretion decently. Mr. W. A Bodkin (Opp., Central Otago) said it was very desirable and very necessary to maintain the fingerprint system. The only people likely to benefit if the clause was removed or altered, would be those in the underworld. He hoped the Prime Minister would not concede one inch. Such a scheme suggested by the Minister of Internal Affairs would cost an enormous sum.

Mr. Langstone said that a person was supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and he insisted that fingerprints should not be taken until a person was convicted. The inference of an arrest was that a person had something to do with a crime, and it his fingerprints were to be taken forcibly, it would make for a Gestapo. Mr. M. H Oram (Opp., Manawatu) said the whole purpose of taking fingerprints was for detection of criije. He was prepared to stake his reputation that crimes at present unsolved could be solved if fingerprints were available. He asked that the Prime Minister go further and delete the sub-clause providing for the destruction of particulars taken if the person was acquitted.

Mr. H. E. Combs (Govt., Onslow) considered the clause was an infringement of liberty of the supbject. Mr. H G. Harker (Opp., Hawke’s Bayi said that if it was right and proper to arrest a person, it was right ana proper to prosecute all means to detect crime. The fingerprint system had saved more innocent people than people who had been convicted.

Mr R. M. Macfarlane (Govt., Christchurch Central) said that no one who was innocent would object to his fingerprints being taken. If fingerprints were taken universally, he doubted if those of the criminals would be obtained. If the clause was not retained it would be a great handicap to the police. Mr. Fraser said that lhe sum total of the speeches of those who were opposed to the clause was that they were out to impede the police. Those figments of imagination about infringements of liberty of the people were just fantastic. He was not prepared to agree to an alteration to the law to make it say that nobody who was convicted should not have his fingerprints taken. To do so would be to become a party to a criminal protection act.

After a little further discussion the clause was agreed to and the Bill progressed to the third reading and was passed.