“ON DUTY”

Waikato Times, Volume 117, Issue 19565, 2 May 1935, Page 9

“ON DUTY”

POLICE CONTROVERSY. > ! HAIR-SPLITTING RULINGS. (From a Correspondent.) SYDNEY, April 12. Among the many interesting questions raised and discussed at the Police Conference last week was the matter of compensation for injuiies. It seems that by the Police Regulation Act of 1923 the Commissioner of ■Police has the final right to decide, in case of accidents, whether a man was on duty or not when injured; and that if he was not “on duty" neither tho man nor his relatives can get any .compensation. Of course, like all departmental offioials, our Commissioners -of Police have thought it desirable or necessary to spend the departmental funds as sparingly as possible, and • as a natural consequence their interpretation of the phrase "on duty” has been sometimes extremely rigid and narrow. For instance, it has ‘been ruled- that a •policeman “walking his beat" is not “on duty” unless and until he- is actually preserving the peace or arresting a law-breaker. Thus it has been laid down •that if a policeman were on his beat and a motor car-ran into the footpath and killed him he could not be said to have been “on duty,” because ho was doing nothing at the 1 time, ,and therefore the department would not toe liable for compensation •to his dependents. Caustic Que'ries.-v- i ; This • -seems a really outrageous decision, and some of the members of the force resented It extremely. One of them wanted to know if a policeman on his -beat was supposed to be there for -the benefit of his health. “I think," he added, “if that man went into a hotel for a drink they would soon let him 'know if -he was on duty or not.” These were imaginary cases, but one actual occurrence was quoted of a striking nature. Constable -Stephenson was detailed for duty at Newtown Stadium. He went up to- the building In a Police Department car, and was walking round to the door at which •he was to eater when a motor cycle ran into him and killed -him. The Commissioner held that Stephenson was not "on duty” at the time, and therefore the department was not liable for compensation. •Mr Cosgrove, the' energetic general secretary of the ‘Police Association, took the matter ,up and interviewed the Commissioner.

Commissioner's Argument. The Commissioner’s answer seems to me little better than an ingenious quibble. He said that the two policemen killed on the Harbour Bridge were directed to go there, and to remain stationed there, and -so they were killed while “on duty." Constable Stephenson, though he had been directed to go to Newtown Stadium and keep order there, was, not “on duty"—he was only on his way to the Stadium—when he was killed. “He was no more on duty,” said the Commlslsoner, “than any other, -member of the public going to the Stadium to take part In the proceedings or to witness a combat." That was the only answer that Mr Cosgrove could get, for the 'Commissioner evidently did not think it necessary to consider the point that as Stephenson was only crossing the road to get to the Stadium the order to, go “on 'duty" there was the cause of his death. Naturally the members of the force were exasperated at this ingenious hair-splitting. It was in the light of such painful experiences that the conference last week carried unanimously a resolution to the effect that the judgment of the Commissioner of Police -as to whether a man was “on duty” or not when injjured should be subject to review by the Police Appeals Board, and that the case might, if necessary, toe carried to the District or the .Supreme Court. It is to be hoped, in the interests of justice and for the isake of the morale of the police force, that some attempt will be speedily made to rectify this intolerable state of things. Surely it Is time for the department to recognise that a policeman is “on duty” so long as he is -carrying out his Instructions, expressed or implied, and that it is responsible for him accordingly.