ARRESTED PERSONS OBTAINING STATEMENTS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 34, 10 February 1913, Page 3

ARRESTED PERSONS OBTAINING STATEMENTS

POLICE METHODS CRITICISED. Questions were asked Detective Gassells iv the case against three youths, Krausch, Eades, and Reid at the Supreme Court on Saturday by counsel for two accused (Mr. V. R. Meredith) as to the usual methods of obtaining a statement from persons arrested. The detective stated that he had had a long experience of cases of this kind, and he was always extremely careful about obtaining statements. He never unfairly pressed an arrested person and, as a matter of fact, he was sorry sometimes about statements being made, after what happened in Court afterwards. Counsel said there was no desire Oil his part to make any suggestion of any unfairness on the part of the detectives, but he submitted the practice was not altogether proper. He quoted the statement of a Judge as to the adraissibility of statements obtained from suspected persons. The Crown Prosecutor urged that the evidence of persons in custody was admissible where the inducement was not such as to tend to render the statement untrue. In some cases question and answer were necessary. Counsel for the accu&ed submitter! that no statement was admissible unless it was freely given without cross-examination. The defendants were in custody, and it was only splitting hairs to say they were not under arrest. The police were not entitled to detain a person in custody after n statement denying an offence. Detention was practically equivalent to arrest. The Crown Prosecutor said that a suspected person, if released after a statement, might warn the real culprit. His Honour said ho thought the evidence must be admitted under section 20 of the Evidence Act. 'He did not think threats or promises had been used which would cause an untrue statement to be made. There were certain cases where a leading question "Did you do a certain act?" at first met with a denial and, after pressure,' answered in the affirmative might cause suspicion on the admission. But in the {resent case statements were made in detail. # They were admissible. His Honour, in summing up, referred to confessions obtained from prisoners. Judges had laid it down that juries were to be very careful in distinguishing whether confessions were true confessions or statements extorted by fear. The New Zealand law was different' from English in respect to < confessions. A confession tendered in evidence in criminal cases was not to be rejected on the ground that pronn'ses or threats had been used to obtain it, provided the inducement offered was not deemed likely to affect the truth or correctness of the statement. English law left it to the Judge to decide the admissibility of evidehce of this kind. The law of New Zealand did not leave it for the 'judge to say that a confession must be* rejected. The law trusted to the jury on the principle that trust should.be placed in the democracy in matters of this kind. His Honour said he was prepared to follow that course in the present case. He added that there was nothing to show that unfair pressure had been used by the detectives. There was no indication in the statements to show that any leading question — "Did you or did you not do this?" had been put. It was for the jury to decide whether the statements were- elaborate concoctions on the part of these young fellows against themselves 01-' simple narratives of truth. The jury could examine the statements for their own satisfaction. They had the direct evidence of the detective that there was ' neither threat nor promise and that the statements were voluntarily made. The jury also commented on the question by adding to their verdict of guilty against Krausch and Reid and not guilty against Eades, the following rider i "That in the opinion of this jury in dealing with suspects it is desirable that wfien any person is asked to make a statement to the police such statement should only be made in the presence of a Justice of the Peace or relative and attested by such person. This recommendation is made with the object of preventing any suspicion of unfair methods being adopted by the police." Mr. Meredith reiterated his statement that his remarks were impersonally directed not against particular detectives but against the practice in general.