SHOT BY CONSTABLE; SEEKS COMPENSATION

Chronicle (Levin), 7 August 1947, Page 7

SHOT BY CONSTABLE; SEEKS COMPENSATION

— ♦ -Press Associcition

By Telegraph-

WELLINGTON, Aug. 6. In the Bfouse of Representatives, Mr. A. M. Finlay (North Shore) reported on behalf of the Public Petitions M to Z Committee that the committee recommended that the petition of Mate Soho Urlich praying for compensation for injuries sustained, be referred to the Government for most favourable eonsideration. Mr. S. W. Smith (Hobson), spealung to the report, said Urlich had lent £250 to a police constable at 3 per cent. interest, receiving a promissorv note from the borrower. Later the constable asked Urlich to accompany him to inspect a site for a proposed aerodrome and, when Urlich complied, the constable sliot him with a revolver, eausing serious injuries. Lcgally the Crown was not liable for the action of the constable (who received seven years' imprisonment) as the latter was not earrying out instructions at the time, it not being his duty to inspect aerodrome sites. Mr. Smith said a country p.oiiceman was always on duty and no citizen would hesitate to accompany a constable on what would appear to the citizen to be an oiiicial mission and not a fietitious one. Urlich not only lost the £250 he had lent the constable but his health had been ruined, and while in hospital he lost £500 worth of gum which was burned or stolen. In view of all this and the fact that he was unable to do hard work since he was injured, his claim for £2000 compensation was extremelv mpdest. He had petitioned tliree Parliaments and each' time the select committee made a most favourable recommendation, but there the inatter ended. One former member of the House had said the Government liesitated to make a grant which would create a precedeut, but surely in sucli exceptional circumstances the Government should be anxious to create a precedeut that would assure citizens they would be compensated if injured while believing they were assisting a constable in his duties. Mr. Fraser gave an assurance that the inatter would be reconsidered, but pointed out tl.-c necessity for the utmost caution in d ealing with any suggestion that u n law tui private acts of public servants should be a charge on the Government as matters for compensation. The Prime Minister recalled that in Hastings a few years ago a constable who becanie bored with lack of burglaries 011 his beat, decided to commit some himself. Were those he robbed eutitled io seek compensation from the State? Mr. Fraser agreed, however, tliat the position 'of a country constable in a rnral connnunity was unique and it was unlikely Urlich would have lent his monoy or been sliot if tlie person res]ionsible had not occupied his position of authority in the community where Urlich lived. Mr. Fraser said that, having known tlie constable concerned, he had been staggered when he learued of tlie occurreuce. ^ Ile thouglit there was a case for the ■Government making a grarft as an adt^fof ^ rex>aration for what Urlich had'stftf eretL Mr. G. H. Mackle.v (Wairarapa): It is, of cou-se, a btg responsibility to disregard the unanimous recommendation of tlie Feleet Committee. i. Mr. Fraser: That depeu'ds on -the committee. If effcct had been given to every unauiinous report of thc Select Committee since I have been a member of this House, tax&tion would be mucli liiglier today. Mi. Holland suggcsted that a new procedure miglit be adopted vvhereby, if tlie Government felt unable to imple inent a recommendatiou of the Select Coiiiinittee, it should at least report back lo tlie IIousp, for a citizen 's petition was to Parliament as a wliole. Parliament should knovv t He outcome oi every petition presented to it. Tlie committee 's recommendation wai adopted.