PRACTICE OF POLICE CRITICISED.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1724, 15 April 1913, Page 6

PRACTICE OF POLICE CRITICISED.

- ' * ■. BY JUDGE EDWARDS,

THE CASE OF ARRESTED SUSPECTS.

MAY THEY BE HECKLED? Criticism of a. kind ivos -'ivolled certain polico methods' by his Honour Jlr. Justice Edwards in the Court of Appeal yesterday. The "methods" were : . llio alleged mode of dealing with suspects. 'Tho. case had been reserved in the first lilacs for tho Court of Appeal's opinion - 09 to "whether the Crown Prosecutor in ; Auckland ha<l infringed the statuto in an ■ ' address to the jury, and as to whether tome of his statements constituted a : comment oil the failure of two prisoners ; to give ovidenco on bath. In addition to this, his Honour Mr. , "Jnstice Edwards, desired to have tho opinion of the judges as to tho propriety of polico officers harrying suspected per- : «bns after tTio latter had ■ actually, been | /taken intp custody. In the case under note, ono of tho prisoners (Barker) had, 'according to the polico evidence, given ' y 'certain, answers to questions, a.nd these. | [were put forward by tho polico as ad- | 'missions. ' ■ i In the course of discussion yesterday, iJIr. Justice Edwards remarked it was Very often a question as to whether ono 'could get a prisoner's answer before the ' . jury through a constable's evidence. AVlipt ./was Teally intended for a, denial might Wsily bo made to.appetn>as an admission. ,Jn this connection his Honour pointed . ,'to a few,words'in the statements attributed to Barker as an apt illustration of ; ■ 'an answer capable of two entirely dif- ' ,-ferent meanings. ' Barker's, statement to the police-sergeant' had certainly not been 'a voluntary tme. The sergeant had him ■'under cross-examination for threc'quarters 0 f an hour, minus a spell of ten .minutes,' when a .constable had given him (the sergeant) a rest. , : The Attorney-General (the Hon. A. 1. •Herdman) remarked, that the sejgeant .had put the questions to Barker before .jjio arrested liim—according to. the serjfeeant's evidence. ' '• ' ' ' i Mr. Justice Edwards: Tho sergeant • ,States- that -he was not under arrest,, but '.that is really farcical. He was in custody ; . '•and was searched. Referring to tho same matter at a later 'stage, his Honour said: "Whero the police ' \ iiare not made up their minds to arrest. . i man,-it is'only fair that they should : Vive that man a chance-of explaining suspicious. circumstances.. But when it rcomes to taking- a man to the station, ■pearching him, and then cross-examining ■'Jura for three-quarters of au hour, I consider it a most dangerous practice, and . .likely to lead to pernicious results. 'If lit is necessary for persons-to be examined, • II have no objection if a proper system— (such as the-Scotch—is followed. But a 1 , {constable or sergeant must no.t be allowed ■to harry a man for three-quarters' of an 'hour and .then come into court and swear as to the result." . .. ... n. :i Mr. Justice Williams also 'remarked - - . 'that there could be lio doubt that the . .prisoner-Barker was really under arrest whehi4o was questioned. Had lie atteinpt- ■ 'ed to run' away the pilice ■ would have 1 ; r : [followed him. Was it not the business of [ the police, after they had arrested a man, 'to keep their mouths shut and their ears . . 'open? The Attorney-General assented,, and "added that .the police should go further still apd even caution the arrested man. Mr. Justice Edwards, as further indication. that Barker was. under arrest, : attention to that ' portion - of tho -cbnKtable's evidence wherein, ,tlio„latter,.said: : "On tho way to the station I, told Barker ' that he was, accused ,of stealing ijlß-of ' Eastgates'i money, and ho said, 'I thought, it was eighteenponce.'" . . A final remark by his Honour was that he did not: question the admissibility of fchs police evidence, but his object, iu stat- ! ' ing these matters for tho Court, was, if possible, to'\/;et the opinion of tho judges ns to Hie propriety of these,practices of the policc. . :