POLICE ETHICS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1646, 13 January 1913, Page 6

POLICE ETHICS.

■ ,——.— .THE BOOKMAKER CASE,

INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. . (To the Editor.) . Sir,—ln a sub-leader under the above title in your' issuo of to-day, you suggest that the public may have some difficulty in following the views expressed by counsel during the hearing of the recent charge against tho . bookmaker Young. May I therefore bo permitted to make the position plain,as far as the real ground of complaint—that of arresting tho defendant and detaining his property—is concerned. Tho charges against Young were not indictable charges, but were merely matters doterminablo. summarily by the stipendiary magistrate. In such cases tho almost invariable practico is to serve the defendant ivith a surations to appear before the Court. It i 3 true that a- warrant, of arrest may be issued under the Justices of the Peaco Aot, but the object of such a warrant, and the only legitimate purpose for whioh it should be used, is to ensure the attendance of the defendant before the Court. If tho police know tho defendant's address 'and that they <$n- find him ..at- any' time to effect service of a summons upon 1 him, and if they Imve no reason to believe that he is likely .to abscond—and it was admitted in this case that the .police kngw the defendant's address, could servo him with a summons ftt any time, and had no reason to suppose that he was likely to. abscond—then, suTely, the issue of a warrant is improper and an abuse of process. I believe that, in making these statements, I am only, repeating what has been said --by Judges of the Supremo. Court over and over again. If the police had informed tho justice whom they asked to sign tho warrant of arrest that they would have no difficulty' in serving Young with a summons, and thst there was no likelihood of his absconding, it would have been, tho duty of. the justice to refuse to sign the warrant.' Furthermore, so far as the actual charges against Young were | concerned the warrant was a gratuitous abuse of process on the part of the police; because, if tho story of Constable. Winn was true—and its truth was not disputed at'tlie hearing—the evidence of guilt was complete without, the necessity of submitting. the : defendant to the degradation of arrest and March, and without tho necessity of taking, and detaining, the papers and documents that, he had upon him. It must be'.remembered that, so far as the administration of the criminal law is concerned 'the procedure in one nonindictable case is no different from that •in any other. If the police are. to be allowed to issue a Warrant of 'arrest against a bookmaker charged with an offence triable summarily, although tho defendant is a well-known person who can be found at any moment, and who is ,not 'in the least likely to abscond,'surely they may, and should, adopt the same process against, say,' a city merchant or professional man who has allowed the, drippings.of, the eaves of his house to fall-upon a public footpath or footway,' or against a person who is alleged to- have beaten a carpet to the annoyance of some other person in a public p.ace. In .the lost-mentioned case, would the police .be justified' in arresting the alleged offender in the" hope of finding upon him documentary evidence in the form of, a letter of instruction■:from the person who had .employed him to: beat the carpet? Or would they be- justified in issuing a warrant of arrest 'in the hope ofifinding upon the defendant bvidence of his 'having? committed some'other offence ? You say in your, sub-leader that the arrest t Young was justifiable in tho circumstances! But, I*ask> upon what, principle? What, is the difference in principle .bshreen the bookmaker -and the carpet-beater, or any- other person who is charged with the commission of any offence triable summarily? ...I have no particular sympathy with the bookmaker's vocation, tmt'he is' entitled to the same general .protection,; and is subject to the' same liabilities, as. the law confers and imposes upon-members of any other oconpation;: -If he commits offences-against the law; he should be nnnishedi but only provided that the punishment is brought about by proner methods. In Yonng's case .he would "have been convicted in any: event, anart from his arrest'and the papers .found on him—but {he-issue of warrants of arrest; in : connection with non-indictaWe .offences, ig a question of general public'importance. If'the T/eirislature thinks fit to say, in regard'to this point, that bookmakers are to'be treated differently from other porsons. let it say so in nlain terms;'but. until tho 1 Legislature, does say ;So, is > if. not better, from any and,everv.point.of view, that a few bookmakers should, perhans escape mm-, ''shment,- than thftt the traditions which have becoma-associated with British justice, and its administration should be ignored, and set aside. ,or .that any process of the administration of tho criminal law should bi allowed to bo used with an improper object?—l ain, etc., ■_ if. MYERS.