POLICE INQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 10, 7 October 1920, Page 5

POLICE INQUIRY

ALLEGATIONS OF AN EX-DETECTIVE

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

CHARGES AGAINST.POLICE OFFICIALS

The commission set np to investigate the causes which brought about the resignation of DotectivurSergennt Michael Mason froni.tho Police Force, in February last, opened its sittings at the Supremo Court yesterday, under the presidency of Mr._ Justice Stringer. Associated with His Honour on tho bench was .Superintendent A. H. Wright, of Auckland. Tho scope of tho commission included a series of allegations made by Mr. Mason against police administration in Wellington. , Mr. ,M. Myers appeared for Mr. Mason, and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., for Superintendent' Norwood, Inspector M'llveney, and Detective-Sergeant Kawle, tho throe police orSoers who tiro the subject of Mr. Mason's allegations. Mr, P. S. It. Macassoy represented the Police Department, while Mr. P. Levi watched the case on behalf of Richard Swayslnnd.

The inquiry is a sequel to the prosecution of two men, John Millnntn and Ernest Miles, who were jointly charged with, the theft of a number of sanitary .pans belonging to the Petone Borough Council. Detective-Sergeant Mason investigated the case, and during the preliminary hearing in the Magistrate's Court ne protested against being instructed to 6wear informations against the acoused, as ho had reason .to believe that the real culprit was a, third man, who was in the employ of tho Borough Council. The upshot was 'thnt Mason was officially calleTt unon to explain his conducts and with a view to ensuring n full inquiry into the circumstances of tho case, he resigned his position. Millanta and Miles wore sent up for trial in the Supreme Court, but were both acquitted by tho jury. ' " „>, Mason's Seven Allegations, . The seven allegations made,by Mason ogainst his superior officers ore as follow:—

(1) That he was required t» swear Informations against ■ Miles and Millanta when his investigations had led him to the opposite conclusion, and that he had so reported.

(2) That at the hearing before the Magistrate, material whioh was in favour of the accused persons was not brought out by the prosecution. (3) 'That because 'he himself in his evidence brought out suoh matters, and because he thought it his duty to do so, he was called upon for an explanation of what was called his "surprising conduct."

(4) That after the proceedings Morn the Magistrate, when the accused persons were committed for trial, inquiries were made for further evidence, such inquirioa being handed over to another officer. (5) That -the case in tho Supreme Courl was handed over to another officer, and that a Hansard reporter was present to take a full note of tho questions and answers of his (Mason's) evidence, which course, under the circumstances, might well have been calculated to have intimidated an -officer in such a position.

(6) That he was thereby subjected to humiliation and his position in ' the Polico Force made -untenable, merely, because he had, in accordance with what he considered his duty, stated in Court matters which, in his opinion, operated or might operate in favour of the accused persons. ~ (71 That after he had tendered his resignation an effort wag made to force him into a position which w.ould have had the effect of preventing a public inquiry. An Outline of the Case.

Mr. Myers, in ' opening, said that throughput his 15 years' connection with the Force' Mason had had. an absolutely good, clean record, and was looked upon as a capable officer. While tu the good service record of Deteetiye-Sov-geant Mason, counsel made, mention oi the fact that a reward, of j6lO had.been granted to him* by the Commissioner in recognition of his work in- running to earth persons responsible. for burglaries in several warehouses in 1917. Counsel went on to point out that Mason did not desire at any time to seek the punishment or degradation of any police of. fleer; his sole object was to clear himself and havo the circumstances investl gated. ■ Mr. Skerrett: I can't accept that, fho charges were personal charges against three officers. ■ • ■ •

Mr. Myers: "It was never hie desire to make.any.charges aiminst any individual officer." Counsel added that Mason was, however, forced into the present position in order to secure a full, impartial and open inquiry. When the .case of Miles and Millanta, was before the Supreme Court, the presiding Judge complimented Mason on the fair manner in which ho had given his evidence. Reasons tor Resignation. Counsel produced copies of various official letters, files, and reports, with the object of establishing (jb.o reasons for Mason's resignation, which were tetuit as follow:—(a) "He considered that he had Been placed fn a false position in the case, and that he had been compelled. lb>a£e a course of action which ho considered unworthy of a loir-minded police officer, and that because ho was doing bis duty in an honest, fair-minded mttoner, a course was taken by hie superior officers which showed a want of confidence in him, and 'was uufair to the accused persons; (b) that if such tactics as had been resorted to in the case of Millanta and Miles were allowed to crntinue, a scandal would result, and 'ho did not desire to be implicated in anytfiihg of the kind: ic) flie '.occlusion das forced upon him by what had happened in the caso that under existing conditions in Wellington an officer who showed that fairness to persons accused which he had always understood it was the duty of a police officer to observe was not regarded with favour. Touching various roports mndo by Mason while investigating tho theft, counsel pointed out that in a') ff tlrfso the evidenco ■ tended to ciculpalo Miles end Millanta and incrimoite a third party, whom the detective alleged had been systematically stealing tho pans for manyjears. On October 1, for instance, Mason reported that there wos no possible chance of getting any foundation to work on, and -.hat no wa in-lined to think that it "would be unsafe to try and build up a case "against — or any other person." In a further official report, dated December 17 Mason stated that ho had discussed the case with tho Inspector seme weeks previously, and had then told him that ho would toll tho whole truth and would adopt the only coimo open to him in the most unfortunate position which ho had over found himself. Acting on further instructions, no continued his inquiries, and discovered evidence which ho considered sla'll further discredited and weakened tho case. I have," he reported, "been unable to get any evidence to support a charge against any person with this offence, and under tho oircumstanee<j I am unable to do anything further with this rase." Hie superior officers thought otherwise, however, end, aoting under instructions, he laid informations against Millanta and Miles, who appeared before the Magistrate on December 17, and were committed for trial. Detective-Sergeant Enwle prosecuted in the case, and it was alleged by Mason that he had failed to elicit cortain facte in favour of the nc-' ouscd. To this end Mason had protested to the Magistrate, His HoiKmr commented that -Mason had gono beyond his province in expressing an opinion in court, seeing that ho was merely thoro to elicit evidence.

Counsel rejoined that his client, in acting as he did; acted with perfect honesty, as ha considered a fair-minded officer should. i "Casting a Slur."

Another point mado by counsol was that when tho oaeo was presented in the Supremo Court, Mason was superseded by Sonior-Sergeant Bird, of Petone, who was called on to place tho case bofore the grand jury. This cast a slur on Mason, and 1 was contrary to sstablished practice. "There may hare been some, laolc of courtesy in not informing Mason of tho <teoislost'" remarked His Honour, "but I *bMI It would have b«tm rtthoj; g&or

ordinary for the person in charge of the prosecution to send beforp tho Grand Jury a man who in his own mind was satisfied that there was no ca6e, and would probably place his opinion before the Grand Jury, with the result that tho bill would be thrown out." Mr. Skerrett (to Mr. Myers): You are making a charge against the Crown Prosecutori -

In concluding, counsel said-that subsequent to Mason's resignation the following charges wvro preferred against him :— (a) On December 17, 1919, was guilty of an act to the prejudice of discipline in the Force by commenting upon the orders and official oonduot of Superintendent Norwood and Inspector M'llvwiey. (b) Was guilty of an act to the preuidico of discipline by writing disrespectfully to the superintendent and inspector, accusing them of oppressive, conduct by including in his official report on tku Mil-larta-Milw case the words: "I was compelled' to swfear informations against the accused contrary to the evidence I had discovered." Complainant in the B:x. The complainant, Michael Mason,' giving, evidence, said that he was now in the employment' of the Harbour Boavd as .a detective. Inferring to his police career, witness stated that ho had never had a"'black mark or complaint made against him. Before being made a detective-sergeant, he had eleven years' experience us a detective. He traced the history of 'his connection with the ■Miles-Millanta case on the lines of counsel's opening address, up to the time ol his report on Octobor VI By this tim« he had' become very suspicious of a third party. Subsequently he met Inspector M'llvcnev in tho street, and tho latter remarked": "I got your report about thoso cases. lam sorry you cannot get sufficient evidence to bring that man — before the Court." The inspector added that he would givo tho matter further consideration. About 8 p.m. tlio following day witness received the iilfl of tho case, with Inspector M'llvoney's instructions. The same night witness discussed tho matter with the inspector for about two hours. The inspector told him that he was quite satisfied that tho third party was the thief, and it seemed a funny thing that witness could not get Miles and Millanta to identify him. "He asked me," added witness, "if I had explained to Millanta and Miles the nature of the oharsfes, and 1 told him that I had- done all that tho Jaw would allow. I told him that all I could do was to tell tho truth, oven if it was the last case I ever undertook. The inspector replied: "I can't help that. You answer my questions and I will prosecute them," Witness added that lie then suggested that he (witness) should go out to Petone, and make some further inquiries. Tho inspector agreeing, ho visited Petone, and submitted o further report, confirming his previous suspicions. > . Alleged Suppression of Facts,

Eeferxing to the Magistrate's Court proceedings, witness said that the prosecution, was conducted by DetectiveSergeant Bawle. Witnesses 6at throughout the hearing of the case, and lie noticed that oe'rtain facts he had- placed in his brief of evidence, which were in .the possession of Detective-Sergeant Bawle, had not been placed' before the Court, This struck witness as very unusual In the brief was a statement that Tomline had been purchasing pans for six or seven years -from two' men other than the. acoused, Miles and Millanta. Other facts set out dn his reports had also not been elicited. Witness declared that after his examination in chief he told the Magistrate that he was in possession of facts whioh had not been brought out. At the requost of the Magistrate witness related the facts in question, which in the main pointed to inconsistencies in the various statements mado by a third jarty who was a witness in the case.- »,

, His Honour: Assuming your belief that — was guilty of the thefts, how would that affect Miles and Millanta on the charge of receiving? ' ..Witness replied, that his only concern at the time was' to place tho full facts before tKe Court. Prior to the case coming on in the Supreme Court witness hM an interview with the Crown Prosecutor, to whom he remarked: "Are you aware that I mentioned in the Lower Court that I had a doubt about 'the caso?" To that the Crown Prosecutor replied: "That is all right, Mason. I don't fliihk there is any u*»l for any douW." r When the case went io the granil fury witness was superseded ,bv Senior-Sergeant Bird, and a true bill was returned.

His Honour: Had you. .gone before the grand jury on the case, would you have expressed your opinion of tho case? Witness: No, under the circumstances I would riot have done so. After relating further details, witness stated that shortly after tho disposal of the case by the Supremo Court bo handed in his resignation. Up to the present time he had not received Els discharge, Under Cross-examination. Cross-examined by Mr. Skerrelt, witness said that thow could be no doubt that the pans received by Miles and Millauta were stolen property. Neither man bore a good character. Counsel: Supposing the conclusion was true which you so quickly arrived at, that was the thief, how could you exonerate Millanta and Miles?— Witness replied that lie did not exonerate them. He merely forwarded the full facts of the case to his superiors.

Did it not strike you as peculiar that Millanta and Miles were not aware that the pans were corporation property?— "Yes."

If. their story was true would you not havo supposed that they would have little difficulty in identifying the man who sold them the pans?—" Yea, and may I add that Mr. Tomline was not able'to identify the two men from whom he had been buying pans from for five or six years."

Coming to the third man, —, Mr. Skerr.ett asked: Did it not occur to you that lib was a striking looking man?— "Yes."

One that could be readily recognised ?■—"Yes."

"Stand up, Mr. Swaysland, please," said counsel. Swaysland stiod up. /Did it not occur to you that Swaysland was not only taller but older than the man described by Tomline ?—"Yes." Counsel went on to cross-examine witness at considerablo length as to the grounds of his assumption that. Swaysland was connected with the case. "Don't Prosecute Them." Referring to witness's conversation with Inspector M'llveney in tho street, Mr. Skerrett asked: Did you say to the Inspector: "For God's 6ako don t prosecute them. If you do my evidence will get them off"?

Witness replied that tho conversation related to tho prosecution of tho third party, and not Millanta and Miles. • Did not tho Inspector say that the surreptitious mooting between Miles and Millanta at tho corporation depot was an additional suspicious ' oircumstanco ?— Witness replied that his memory failod him on tho point. Did you not say to tho Inspector: It means tho end of me in tho service?— "I did not use those words. I merely said tlinfc'l would tell tho whole truth, even if it wore the last coso I over prosecuted."

. Did Inspector M'llveney nslc you if you had made a promise to Miles and Millanta?—"No."

His Honour: Did Miles and Millanta satisfy you that they camo by this property honestly?—" No." Mr. Skerrott: Then, why dJd you say that you were compelled to lay the information against these mon. knowing that they wero Innocent?—"l was satisfied that they wero not guilty of theft." The "Distinction." Oh. that is tho distinction! You have no compunction, then, on th'o ocoro of laying a suspicion information for receiving stolen property?—" No." But you had objection to laying a chargo of stealjng?—"Yea." His Honour: What is tho difference between laying an information for stealing goods tinner' these circumstances or receiving them?—" There may bo no difference. 'I boliovo that theso two men wero innocent of tho charges preferred against them." Did you make any complaint to your superior officers before signing the informations ?—"No. I had already explained tho position to tho inspector." What was to prevent you asking to bo reliovod of this duty?—"l would probably have been charged with neglect of duty." His Honour: If you had come to the opposite conclusion, would yon still hay* oonoo,i.wd It your duty to «spS«,M fla

opinion to tho Magistrate Hint the men wero guilty?— The reply was inaudible. . Were vmi on friendly terms with RnwleP—"i'es."' If you were on friendly terms with Rawlo why did you not go to him and say: "I want such and such a point brought out?"—"I know Ilawlc too well for that. Ho would think ho know better than I did." Hib Honour: Would you not ray now, as thoio mon wero found in possession of stolen property and had failed to glvo a satisfactory account, that they should bo prosecuted for receiving?— "Yes," In viow of .that, I don't quite. understand yon saying in your report: "I feel' quito satisfied that Miles and Millanta wera qtii'to bona fldo in their transaction."—The answer was inaudible. At this stage tlie inquiry was adjourned until this morning.