POLICE TACTICS CRITICISED

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 198, 10 May 1918, Page 6

POLICE TACTICS CRITICISED

THE AFFAIR AT KELBURN

DENUNCIATION BY MR. M. MYERS

Arlsiug out of tho hearing of tho charges against tho accused concerned in the 'raid on promises at No. 48 Upland Bond, Kellwrn, serious reflections were mado in tho Magistrate's Court yesfci'day by one of tne counsel engaged for the defence (Mr. M. Myers) on the action of the pulice. Bcforo proceeding with his address on behalf of Marion Elliott, one of the accused women, Mr. Myers said that thcro were certain matters of grave public interest involved in the case, to which he felt in duty hound to refer. In this connection he said that the efforts of tho police in the interests of the public and of justice could only be useful if their work and their methods commended themselves as honourable and just, and entitled to the publics support. "British men and British women will not, I venture to say," he continued, "tolerate any unwarrantable action on the part of the police which tends to the destruction of tho fair name of decent and reputablo women. I am going to show that in this case a gross outrage was committed. In the first place there has bceu a raid on tho home of an English woman which was absolutely unnecessary in the interests of justice. If the evidence of the police was reliable and true, then, sir, it is plain that an information and summons would' have met the same. The allegedly guilty parties were known, the police could ■have brought them up on summons without putting Mrs. _ Gunman and the other persons in the house to the indignity which they have been subjected to in these proceedings. There was a reckless and unwarrantable arrest or decent women. One of them was a married woman with her husband. There were also in their number Mrs. Head and a young girl, against wnom not a vestige of criticism was or could be held. Also, there were Misses JMngle and Alma Elliott, and lour Worship knows that there was no evidence ngainst them. Further, these same women were cubjected to the further indignity of search and detention at the Police Station, and we even nncl information given by the police to a certain newspaper—'because it could not have come from any other source—dimming the names of decent and respectable people who were at the house ami against whom there was not a vestige of suspicion.

"No Legal or Moral Justification." "The police had no right to arrest, except, it at all, under the War Regulations of 1916. Under these regulations, even if they were applicable, the police had power to arrest only persons 'reasonably suspected' of having committed, or uciiig about to commit, an offence under tho regulations. And the police themselves admitted that not only had they no' reasonable suspicion,, but there i« no suspicion at all against Mr. and Mrs. Gunman, Mrs. Head, and the young girl who was with her. Yet all these threo persons were iv res t e d> detained:, _ and searched without legal or moral justification. The regulations of August, lOili, dealing with houses of ill-fame authorised tho Justice to issuo a warrant to 6earch only, yet this warrant required tho police not only to search but also to arrest all persons on the premises. Tlus part of the warrant was without legal authority or justification. Further, the regulations provide that a warrant should not be issued to a polico officer of a rank low.er than a rergeant. This warrant was issued to a constable. Also, tho warrant directed tho search to be made by day. The police as a matter of fact executed it by night. This wns an error," continued Mr. Mve'rs. "but I will not press it." In describing the arrest of the innocent women lie had named as nothing short of an outrage, counsel said that the police themselves admitted that they had not an a lorn of proof or a vestige of suspicion. He submitted that it was tho duty of counsel to protest when an outrage had been committed in tho riamo of justicu against the liberties of the public which was calculated to ruin a woman or women who veto absolutely innocent of any ort'enco. Tho police had indulged in recklessness, for which they were receiving tho strongest public condemnation.

In stating that he felt very strongly on the matter, Mr. Myers pointed out that tho warrant ordered tho arrest of all persons found in tho house, and asked why the men were not arrested, as well ns the women. The police, he said, had disobeyed the warrant. He did not suggest that the ineiu should have been arrested—it would have been an outragebut if decent women were arrested why were not tho men also taken into custody? The explanation of the polico given to tho newspapers that they could not arrest the men was idle.

Statement Objected To.' "With a relish and a zest, sir," Mr. Myers continued, "the police entered upon these procedings." Inspector Marsack: I object to thai. Mr. Myers:'! nm not referring to Inspector Marsack, but to tho men who were engaged. Concluding, counsel severely criticised of tho police party concerned. In referring briefly to the subject in tho course of his address, Mr. H. F. O'Loary, who was also engaged as ccunbol in tho caso deplored tho fact that New Zealand's returned heroes—officers who had seen three years' active service, and were returning—should bo stigmatised by the police not only as liars but as perjurers. And this all because they had voluntarily come forward to defend'the honour of women. The police regarded theso heroes, he said, in. the light of criminals. At the conclusion of Mr. O'Lcary's address Air. Myers intimated that he had Intended to state that the police in saying they could not arrest men found in the house were wrong. The War Regulations gave them power to arrest tho men as "aiders and abettors." Inspector Marsack: You are wrong. Mr. Myers: I am right. Uis Worship commented that the men could have been arrested under tho Justice of the Peace Act, for without men a house of ill-fame could not exist.