POLICE APPEALS

Evening Post, Issue 126, 29 May 1936, Page 10

POLICE APPEALS

DISPUTE AT GISBORNE

INSPECTOR AND CONSTABLES

APPLICATION TO COURT

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

GISBORNE, This Day

Charges against members of the Police Force and consequent repercussions were .ventilated before the Acting Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Reed) in the Supreme Court this morning when application was made for a writ of prohibition and certiorari restraining a police board of inquiiy from proceeding with the hearing. Outlining the position, the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. F. W. Nolan, who appeared for the Police Department, explained that in August last an inquiry was held by Inspector Martin into charges against . Constable Hendren, whose dismissal from the Force was recommended by the inspector. Hendren appealed, and the board varied the recommendation by advising reduction of Hendren's seniority. During the hearing of the appeal Constable i Scandrett made a statement regarding the conduct of-Inspector Martin and as a result both Scandrett and Hendren appeared before Inspector Lander charged with making a false statement. The charges were held to be proved, and dismissal of the men was recommended. There had been considerable delay in hearing the issues and an appeal to the board was interrupted by the commencement of the present proceedings, j Mr. L. T. Burnard, for the two constables, said that they had stated at the inquiry that they saw Inspector Martin in a' car with a woman and the i whole question was whether the inspector or the constables were to be believed. At the inquiry he (counsel) had cross-examined with the object of discrediting the inspector's evidence. His Honour: There is a limit 'to i which such cross-examination should go. The whole tone of your questions' leaves an impression in my mind that you were attempting to do as much harm as possible to Martin. I don't I know whether you were instructed to give the inspector what you could because he had prosecuted one of these men," but that is the impression left in my mind. Mr. Burnard denied that this was his intention and went on to refer to the charge previously preferred against the inspector of indecent exposure.

Mr. Nolan interjected that this charge had been withdrawn by the Court at Mr. Burnard's request, and Mr. Burnard said that it had been impossible to proceed as his witnesses had been interfered with by representatives of the Police Department.

After further argument the application was dismissed... -