SUSPECTS' ORDEAL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1746, 10 May 1913, Page 5

SUSPECTS' ORDEAL.

IN POLICE HANDS. QUESTIONING OF PRISONERS. JUDGES' COMMENT. HINT THAT IT MUST CEASE. 1 ointcd comment, very pointed comment, was mado on certain polico methods in dealing with, suspected persons by iiio Court of AppenA Judges yesterday morniii£. Uie eomit>ents wore mado when their Honours wero delivering judgment in an Auckland criminal case, lUI. tho King v. Barker and liailey. In .stating th< caso for tiio Court, Mr. Justico Edwards had sul/mitted questions as to tho admissibility of certain polico cvidcnco and as to whether the police officers were justified in cross-examining prisoners whe were really under arrest. What the Chief Justice Thought, The Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout) referred to tho matter .-us follows :-"Ono of tho main questions in tho caso is as to tho conduct of tho polico sergeant. Ho put questions to tho accused when they wero in custody, aud before thoy had been charged. It is a difficult mater to lay down n rule beyond that which tho law has already laid down, viz., that no police oiiiror should threaten an accused person, or, by promises or inducements, attempt to obtain admissions. Tho Evidence Act, WOB, Section 20, says: 'A confession tendered in cvidcnco in any criminal proceeding shall not bo rejected on tha ground that a promise or threat has been held out to tho person confessing, unless tho Judgo or other presiding officer is of opinion that tho inducement was, in fact, I'kely to causa an untrue admission of guilt to lx> made.' It is, therefore, clear that, in this case, tho evidence was admissible, as the learned Judgo has held. This evidence was, in fact, not objected to. I doubt whether any absolute rule can be laid as to how far a pol'co officer may go in putting questions. It is well said by Mr. Justico Cooper that it is a practice that should bo sparingly resorted to. Where,' however, before a formal charge <s made, a polico officer has doubts about a person's guilt, there can bo no objection to questions being put to ascertain facts that will pefhaps show that tho suspicions of tho officer aro well founded or olso unfounded. I do not think that tho Court should lay down an abstract rule that it would bo the province of tho Legislature to cnacti and tho circumstanccs of cases differ so much."

Mr, Justice Williams: f'Tho Mischiefs Likely From Private Examination." Mr. Justico Williams's commcnt on the matter was brief, but pointed. Ho raid: "I have no doubt, and it is, in fact, admitted, that tho answers to tho questions put by tho polico sergeant (o tho accused alter they had been arrested (but before they wcro formally charged) nro admissiblo in evidence. At tho same timo I am strongly of opinion that, after a person has been arrested', and while ho is ill custody, he ought not to bo questioned by tho polico umcss ho makes a voluntary statement, and questions nro necessary to olucidato that statement. Tho Magistrate beforo whom an accuscd person is brought has no power to question him, and it would bo wrong for tho Court to givo its sanction to a practice which would have tho effect of giving to ilia arresting constablo greater powers tlian the magistrate. Tho misehici's which nrn likely to aria- from a privato examination by tho polico of a prisoner in custody aro obvious." Mr. Justico Deuniston, Mr. Justion Cooper, and Mr. Justico Chapman all expressed themselves as being in agreement with (lie observations made by Mr.' Jus ticoz-Willinras on tho question. Strong Comment by Judge Edwards. Much stronger commcnt was made by Mr. .Tustico Edwards. He agreed that tho ovidenco of thjy police officers at the trial was admissible, but as to I licit method of dealing with ono of (ho prisoners, ho commented as .follows:— ' "While I givo those officers credit foi acting under a mistaken sense of duty, I cannot too strongly condemn their action. Here, after olio of tho prisoners had been taken into custody, these two officers spent (according to the evidence of ono of them) probably half an hour— . perhaps three-quarters of an hour—in cross-examining him as to tho alleged | crimo. As tho result, tho sergeant de- ' posed that he said to the prisoner, 'What i did you throw on tho section ?' That tho . prisoner replied, 'Notliinp;.' That tho sergeant rejoined, 'You were seen throw- , iiig something there.' And that the prisoner answered, 'If you say I was seen, ; I won't deny it.' The nonstable, speak- : ing of (ho saulo occurrence, swore.— ; 'Sergeant Eraser came into the station 1 and told Barker, 'Yon were seen to throw tho money away.'' Darker said, 'I . •won't deny it, if 1 was seen.'" , Hero we have a material discrep- ' ancy between tho evidence of tlie police officers themselves— Barker's reply according (o (he evidence of the sergeant was equivocal, according' to the evidence of _ the constablo it was a. complete admission of guilt'. This , illustrates tho danger of building up a prosecution Upon alleged admissions of guilt to tho polico by persons charged with crijne. I did not myself believe at Ihft trial that Barker had mado any ad- » mission of guilt, though I do not suggest that cither oHlcer committed per- ;; jury in this respect. It is obvious that tho very intonation of an answer, to t,uch an assertion as was mado by ■ , the sergeant, might bo a denial. It ; is equally obvious that tho change of a. single word might make all tho dif- ■ fcrenco between admission and denial. . The glaring discrepancy between the evidence of the two officers, a' to the words actually used, shows how littlo such evidence can bo mien ; upon. '

This feature must always occur wllerß tho evidence of police officers is given as to such admission?, even when -they arc alleged 1.0 have been voluntarily made. "Drastic Steps with' Police may be Taken." It would 1)0 intolerable if the polico were allowed to make a practaco of cross-exam-ining persons charged with crimes, and to brin? into court, as the avsult of .such 'cross-examination, an alleged admission extorted in its course. It may well be doubted whether t'ho Scotch system of examining such persons before a judicial olliccr, who late down their answers in writing, leaving thorn i'reo to answer or refuse to answer questions put. to them, is not the liest system in tho interests of just ice. To that system I, i:l:.rsonallj\am not opposed. Hut that any police officer should be allowed to cress-examine prisoners and to bring into court, in proof of their guilt, alleged admissions extorted in the courso of a long examination, is so repugnant to British ii!c«s of tho administration of justice that I am confident that if the police do not act upon tho warning given in this more drastic, stops will bo taken to keep them within the strict line of their duty. When a person is suspected of crime, but tho police .recognise that he may be able to give a satisfactory explanation of circumstances, which appear to tell against him, ami they havo not made up their mind« to arrest him, it is proper to give thai p-rson an opportunity of explanation Kven in that ease it is highly desirabli that this duty should be undertaken by ono of the superior and .more experienced ofliccrs of tho police force. After (Ikpolice have resolved to arrest a. person suspected of crime, or while hi? is under arrest, it is in tho highest' degree improper to (|Ue.stioii him ns to any matter which directly ov indirectly bears upon I lie ci ime in (|iicslion.