MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION.

New Zealand Police Gazette, Volume LIV, Issue 29, 24 July 1929, Page 501

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION.

Dismissed. No. 2830. Constable Milliken, George Kyle. 15th July, 1929. Resignation. No. 2475. Constable Nehoff, William Albert. 20th July, 1929. Appointments as Constables. 17th July, 1929. No. 3050. Patterson, John. No. 3051. Wilson, James. No. 3052. Stewart, John Charles. No. 3053. Gleeson, Francis Joseph. No. 3054. Pointon, John Morris. No. 3055. Muggeridge, Bernard Pither. No. 3056. Williamson, James Gerald. No. 3057. Mackrell, John. No. 3058. Gjersen, Valentine Ivan. No. 3059. Gaines, Edward John. No. 3060. Simpson, John Francis Percival. No. 3061. De Young, James Boyd. No. 3062. Hardie, Percy Angus. No. 3063. Shannon, Douglas William. . No. 3064. Quin, Alphonsus Gerard. No. 3065. Fell, William Ernest. No. 3066. Mark, Sydney Rawiri. No. 3067. Carson, Charles Beresford. No. 3068. McQuarrie, Duncan Kenneth Roderick. No. 3069. Woodward, Victor. No. 3070. Leadley, Frederick Austin.

New Station opened. Waitaki Hydro-works, Timaru District.

Memorandum.] Cinematograph Films. The following memorandum from the Under - Secretary, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, is published for general information and attention. W. B. Mcllveney, Commissioner of Police. Wellington, 18th July, 1929. (P. 29/957.)

Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 16th July, 1929 Memorandum for the Commissioner of Police.

Cinematograph Films

The following is a copy of a memorandum received by me from the Censor of Cinematograph Films : “ Since the two prosecutions at Hamilton last month for exhibiting films which had not been examined by the Censor there has been an increase in the number of applications for examination of short subjects for exhibition at winter shows, Vc. Some applicants have stated openly that they did not know the law on the subject until they noted the accounts of the prosecution in the press. In at least one case lam satisfied that a local topical subject has been on view in the Waikato for nearly two months and has only this week been sent in for examination.

“As it seems that the requirements of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1928, are not being fully observed, either deliberately or through ignorance, I recommend that the Commissioner of Police be advised and asked if his officers on duty at shows could be instructed to inquire whether exhibitors have certificates from the Censor. The theatres in the main centres, I believe, comply with the regulations regarding the display of the certificate, but I do not think they are always as punctilious in the smaller centres with their local topic.” As you are aware, under section 7 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1928, it is an offence to exhibit a film that has not been approved by the Censor, In addition to the above, it is provided in the regulations of the 17th December, 1928, that a photographic reproduction of the certificate of the Censor shall be incorporated in the film to which it relates.

I shall be obliged if you could see your way to issue such instructions to your officers in the matter as you may deem necessary.

G. P. Newton, Under-Secretary

Memorandum.] Disposal of Money found on or in the Possession of Prisoners in Custody and directly or indirectly connected with a Charge pending against them —Default under the Destitute Persons Act not such a Charge—Regulation No. 542. The following Crown Law Office opinion is published for general information, guidance, and attention : In future all members of the Force shall strictly follow this legal opinion in relation to charges under the Destitute Persons Act.

W. B. Mcllveney, Commissioner of Police Wellington, 20th July, 1929. (P. 29/968.)

The Commissioner of Police

Crown Law Office, Wellington, 18th July, 1929

Police Regulations, 1919, Regulation 542,

In reply to your memorandum of Ist instant.

A person held in custody under arrest and before conviction has prima facie the same rights of disposal over his property as any other member of the public. Section 14 of the Police Force Act, 1913, authorizes regulations for the government of the Force and for all matters necessary for rendering the members of the Force efficient for the discharge of their duties. Section 14 does not authorize the enactment of any regulation affecting the rights of the' public at large, except so far as such rights may, necessarily be affected indirectly by matters relating to the government or efficiency of the Force. Anything more would be ultra vires. Regulation 542 should be read so that if possible no ultra vires signification is given to it. So far as money that is actually the property of a person in custody is concerned, I think the most that can be done is to prevent him from using it in a manner that would be contrary to discipline. There is, I believe, no means of preventing a person in apprehension of judgment from dealing with money either as a gift or by way of extravagant expenditure so that he shall be unable to comply with an order of the Court involving payment of money, whether by way of fine, costs, compensation, maintenance under the Destitute Persons Act, or any other payment which it is within the jurisdiction of the Court in the circumstances to impose. I can find no ground for differentiating the position where the person is in custody. Regulation 542 is probably from its wording directed not to money that is the property of a prisoner, but money that is probably not his; this arises from the use of the word “ return.” So read the regulation is perfectly valid, but it can then have no application to cases under the Destitute Persons Act.

My opinion on the questions raised is therefore as follows : 1. A charge based on default under the Destitute Persons Act is not a charge with which money on the prisoner’s person can be directly or indirectly connected within what must be taken to be the meaning of Regulation 542. 2. An order against the prisoner for payment of maintenance could not be regarded as a judicial order for the return of any such money within the meaning of Regulation 542.

A. E. Currie, Crown Solicitor.