THE CASE OF CONSTABLE CLYNN.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1079, 18 March 1911, Page 3

THE CASE OF CONSTABLE CLYNN.

Sir,—Tho decision in this case appears to me to call for special attention, not only in tho interests of tho polico forco as a body, but also ill tbo interests of tho law-abiding section of tho public. 1 feel with others that a grave injustico has been done to the constablo in question, and that it is only right and proper that the decision of tho magistrate should be criticised, as tho decision of any gentleman holding a public position should be open to just and fair criticism. 1 therefore propose by analysing tho evidence as brought forward by the prosecution to show that the decision arrived at by Mr. Biddell, the inagistrato in question, is wrong, that tho conviction recorded is not only erroneous, but that a great injustico has been done to a young constable endeavouring to carry out bis duty. Now as to evidence, and I wish it clearly understood that I am at a certain disadvantage in analysing that I did not actually hear, and witness tbo demeanour of the various witnesses when tendering their evidence—which, I admit, is a most important factor in arriving at a just decision. It must therefore bo understood that I am relying upon the report of the caso as appearing in tho papers being correct, as I have no doubt it is.

In the first place, tho counsel for tho prosecution stated that tho case vas of more than of ordinary importance. Undoubtedly it was. The prosccutor (one Black)'stated on oath that ho had been drinkjng at tho Central Hotel; • that in the company of Jacobs and Coleman lie proceeded at nearly eleven o'clock at night along Tory Street, Jacobs at that late hour of night singing. .They met two policemen and a civilian, ono of the policemen being Constablo Glynn, who said, "Como on; pull yourselves together"; that the constablo' then caught hint by tho shoulder and kicked him twicc, and also shoved him. That appears to have been tho material facts as given by him. Ho was- then taken in hand by Mr. Gray, the counsel for the constable, to whom he had to admit, in reply to this question: "Now, have you had any encounters with the police, say. during the last twelve months?" Blael; (after some hesitation) admitted that Constablo Fisher had to speak to him on ono occasion; on another occasion that Constable Proctor had to shift him off tho footpath ; and that on another occal sion he with others had to provide a suit of .clothes,. the presumption being that ho and . others had damaged tho suit of someone in some way. That is tho evidence of the chief witness for tho prosecution. Then one of his companions, Jacobs, who was the causo of polico interference, corroborated Black's evidence. Jacobs, in cross-examination, admitted that ho had met Black several times and had talked over tho case— another significant fact that called forth t!io comment of Mr. Gray that tho three witnesses for the prosecution had agreed exactly in every detail, even to the conversations. If tho words had been repeated three timc-s by a phonograph they could not have been more accurate. Coleman, tho third companion, also corroborated Black's testimony. _ He also, on cross-examination, admitted that he had met Black by appointment several times and talked over tho case. No wonder their evidenco was so exactly like that which Mr. Gray stated was such as would be produced ' from a phonograph. Tliero wo have practically the wliolo of the evidence for the prosecution on which Mr. liiddell was not only asked to convict, but did convict., Now to analyse that evidence prior to dealing with the evidenco for the defence. There is an admission that tho three were drinking in tho Central Hotel. They had no fewer than three drinks prior' to leaving at closing time. That tho peace of tli* neighbourhood was disturbed by singing at that late hour of nearly eleven o'clock at night. That tho prosecutor (Black) on his own admission admitted that his conduct on other occasions had been reproved by the polico and that the three witnesses had met (at least once by appointment) several times and had talked over the case. Tlio;evidcnco for tho defence disclosed that Constable Glynn swore that ho did not kick Black, that ho simply pushed him away, or as your Teport states "witness then caught Black by tho arm and turned him round in tho direction of I.orno Street." It must he remembered that Black admitted that ho called Constablo Glynn a nickname "Toucher." Glynn also swero that the threo men wore arm-in-arm on the footpath, that they wero swaying as thev walked and that they wero singing, and as tlie.v wero on Constablo Andrews's beat be spoke to them. Nothing whatever was adduced against Constablo Glynn's character. Constablo Andrews corroborated Glynn's evidence and saw no kicking. A civilian, Mr. John Hanlsy, stated that all ho saw was that Constable Glynn caught Black by tho arm and gave him a shove and tiiat the conduct of the three men was such as to justify any constablo in giving them a caution. Then most important evidence is given by Constablo Shaw, of the Mount Cook Polico Station, who stated that that night Black visited the station and complained of being shoved, but made'ho mention of being kicked. The evidence for tho defence proved that Glynn deposed that he never kicked Black, but that lie turned him round, which niight possibly bo construed as a shove of a very harmless nature. That the tbi'.Qo men were coming along the footpatli .singing and also swaying about; also that Black made use of insulting language by addressing a constable whilst on duty by a nick-name. That both Constable Andrews and Mr. Hanloy who were present did not see any kicking and then, to my mind, the most important ovidence of all, tho statement .oT Constable Shaw..that when Black visited tho Police Station ■ ■■ hemade no complaint whatever of having been kicked. ■ It is most remarkable that any man who had been kicked by a policdman should go to a police station and mSko no mention of the fact thai (the chief ingredient in the assault) ho had been kicked and yet complain about a - very minor matter of having been shoved. That is tho wliolo case. On what I consider doubtful evidenco ■ a young constable has been convictcd. heavily, fined, and mulcted ill costs. I affirm'that the weight of evidenco was in favour of the constable. It is ono. of tho worst decisions that I liavo ever heard of in a Court of justice. Possibly, tjio public, are not aware of tho further penalty that may bo imposed upon Constable Glynn. This conviction might result in his dismissal from tho police force, also an endorsement on his defaulters sheet and on hi* d'schargo. Then follows the most serious aspect of all,, namely, that lis woii'd be prevented from entering any pol'ce force in- the British' Dominions. In other words it means tho nttcr ruination of that young man's career as a police, officer. ■ Should such a serious penalty follow, such a trivial e,V,ico which at the utmost can only to olaimed to be a technical assault lor shoving the prosccutor? What is tho position in the future if; a police officer, whilst entirely alone endeavours to prevent disorderly conduct, amongst three or four individuals? What, indeed, niight bappen to a constable, if a charge of ;.f----sanlt •'wero brought against him ,When in the case I havo been dealing with lie has corrnborativo evidence supporting him valid ho -is convicted? What, I ask. would happen if,he had no corroborat'vc ovidence? A decision like this i&onoucli to frighten any officer from doing his duty under such oircumstances? and as this affects the public pcace it is a matter of serious moment,. I hope that . JkoOv-pissionor of Polico, before tat

• • I ing action regarding Constable Glynn will himself go carefully thro'.igliall rikj evidence and see if my'conte:iiion.:s i*ot a cori'ect one,—l am, etc,, LAW COUIIT.