ANTI-SHOUTING

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 73, 19 December 1917, Page 6

ANTI-SHOUTING

POLICE METHODS CRITICISED"

INTERESTING POINTS

Oji September 28 last Joan M'Whirter, barmaid at the Grand Hotel, was convicted and fined £5 Ib. by Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., for soiling liquor to oiio person for consumption bv others —a breach of the War Regulations— and the facts in tho case were reviewed yesterday in the Supreme Court on a motion to quash the conviction. His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards was on the bench, Mr. M. Myers appeared in support of tho application, and Mr. P. S. K. Maoasaey, of the Crown Law Office, opposed. In opening Mr. Myers stated that the methods adopted by the police under tho War Regulations to obtain a conviction wore of great public interest, and ho desired ftr'say something about the mothods. His Honour: You had better bo careful Mr. Myers, or you may bring yourself under the War Regulations. Mr. Myers: I don't think so. At any rate I-am going to express myself on tho matter. His Honour: But you must be careful not to draw me into anything of the sort.

At this stage Mr. Macassey questioned the right of Mr. Myers to deal with the matter in the way he was proposing.! Mr. Myers said it was not the policy of tho War Regulations, but the methods adopted by the police m carrying out the regulations that he intended to criticise. The methods adopted by the police were: At about 8 p.m. on Saturday two constables in plain clothes set out to visit a number of hotels in search of evidence for a conviction. Botween 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. they visited seven hotels, taking intoxicating liquor at each hotel. By tho time they had reached the Grand Hotel they had had five or six drinks. They did not go into the bar for the purpose 6T catching the barmaid themselves, but to catch them in respect to the 6ale of liquor to other people. Saturday night was the busiest night of the weok, and aftor the constables had haddrinkß themselves and had looked around they took their departure. Then on the Monday or Tuesday following the two constables and a sergeant went to the hotel and informed the barmaid that at such and such an hour on Saturday night she had committed a breach of the regulations. It was absolutely impossible for any person to remember what ho or she was doing at any given hour during the rush timo on a Saturday night. Mr. Macassey again pointed out that Mr. Myers was not entitled to go into the matter in that way. If there had been no evidence to support the conviction in the case then he should appeal. Continuing, Mr. Myers said that the police had not said a word to the barmaid on the Saturday night. They said not a word to the people who "shouted," and had made no effort to find out who these persons were. iA.ll that they stated in evidence was that they went into tho hotel, and .that while they were thero one person shouted for two others. This was considered sufficient to throw reasonable suspicion on tho defendant. Thus tho onus of proof was on the defendant to prove hor innocence, and this it was utterly impossible for her to do, although she might be absolutely siire she committed no breach. The defendants in such cases were Invariably convicted, which did not seem to accord with British justice. Counsel then proceeded to review the evidence, and remarked that apparently the constables. concerned had an enjoyable drinking round at the public' expense. Had they been called to give evidence for the defendant in all probability they would have been sajd to havo been under the influence of liquor at tho time. Being police constables and witnesses for the Crown that, of course, was not suggested. Mr. Myers held that the conviction could not stand beoauso it*was a conviction for one offence. If thero had been a'ny breach at all there were two, and not one. In illustration of his argument he named the three artillorymen who were alleged to have been the cause of the A. B. and 0. A shouted for B and this was an offence complete in itself.- A also shouted for 0 at the same timo, and that was another offenoe complete in itself. It was thus quite clear that there had to be two convictions, whereas there had been .'only one. If the police had been fair such a contention would not have been advanced. They should have taken the names of the soldiers concerned. It might be said that the point he had raised was too technical—too subtle. Under the circumstances and in view of the methods of the police he felt quite justified in taking any possible defence. In support of his contention counsel quoted various authorities. Mr. Macassey. in replying, said it was the duty of the police to enforce the' anti-shouting regulations, and in doing so they must be discreet. If the constablos had at onco informed the barmaid in the case under notice tho licensee of the hotel would probably have communioafe"a immediately Tjith other licensees and warned them that a raid was in progress. His Honour: It obviously imposes great hardship on the persons convicted. Sir. Macassey: I quite recognise that, Your Honour. His Honour: It is a. hardship because, it seems to prevent any possibility of defence, and the soldiers who were also guilty were allowed to walk out of thejbar. I would havo thought a {air way would have been to detain the soldiers. Mr. Macassey: On the other hand, licensees could communicate with other hotels. ' His Honour: I don't think that is a reason. Mr. Macassey quoted a number of authorities in opposition to the points raised by Mr. Myers. He contended tliaf. on the occasion in question thero was clearly only one offence—the sale of three glasses of liquor to one person. His Honour reserved his decisiou.