RAROTONGA INCIDENT

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 148, 18 March 1939, Page 7

RAROTONGA INCIDENT

Police Officer’s Alleged Insubordination CASE IN COURT OF APPEAL An appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Reed quashing the decision of John Henry Boyes, Public Service Commissioner, by which the chief police officer at Rarotonga, Albert Carlyou, was removed from his post and transferred to New Zealand, was made to the Court of Appeal yesterday. After hearing legal argument the Court reserved decision. On the Bench were the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Ostler, Mr. Justice Smith and Mr. Justice Fair. Mr. A. E. Currie appeared for appellant and Mr. W. P. Rollings for respondent.

Last March a charge of insubordination was laid against Carlyou by Stephen John Smith, the then Resident Commissioner and acting-chief judge, in the absence of Judge Ayson. After an inquiry by the Public Service Commissioner, Boyes, the charge was upheld. The charge arose from Canlyon’s action in entering the commissioner's office under a search warrant, and seizing papers relating to a pending court case. The inquiry was conducted by Boyes, at Avarua, Rarotonga, on April 25 and 26, and upon the charge being upheld, Carlyon was deprived of a week’s salary and he was ordered to be transferred from the Cook Islands to New Zealand by the first available boat to report to the Commissioner of Police for duty. Quashing of the deciison was sought on the grounds that Boyes did not have jurisdiction because Carlyon, a New Zealand police officer, was subject to the provisions of the Public Service Aet, 1912, and that he was refused the statutory right of representation by counsel at the inquiry.

Mr. Justice Reed stated in his judgment that quashing the decision would have at least the effect of expunging from Carlyon’s record a conviction of insubordination, a serious matt’er to a man who was back again in his position as a police constable. He thought, therefore, that as reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice was refused to Carlyon, and that a distinct statutory’right was denied him, the application that Boyes’s decision be quashed should be granted. Mr. Justice Ostler asked Mr. Currie why the appeal had been brought, seeing that the transfer had been made, Carlyon’s name had been cleared, and only a week’s salary appeared to depend on the Court of Appeal’s decision. “The reason for the appeal is this,” replied Mr. ’Currie. “However unsatisfactory the decision was felt to be in the Supreme Court, it was not intended to appeal against it, till respondent opened his mouth widhr and made large claims for compensation.”