J.P. BEFORE COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 21 April 1926, Page 1

J.P. BEFORE COURT

CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTING THE POLICE. NAPIER. April 19. An unusual case was heard at the I’olit- Court to-day when Arthur Cochrane Bennett, a Justice of the Tepee, .appeared before Mr. NY. Dyer, S.M.. charged with wilfully obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. The facts disclosed by the police evidence were to the effect that on the night of April 7 there was a fatal accident on the Taradalo Road, when a <l:ir driven by T. C. Lowry ran down a man and killed him After taking the body to the morgue. Lowry went to the Police Slation to report the matter, and Constable Murray was instructed to take a statement as to the lacs of the case. Lowry was invited to make a statement- and was taken into flic watch,, house behind the counter, and commenced to mnke a statement Defendant then entered and wen! behind the counter, behind which no one was allowed to go without permission and said: “I am sorry to hear about this, Tom Making a statement are you? My advice to you is to make no statement and sign uoiliing." • Defendant then went to read the statement, but flic constable stopped him. covering up the paper and asking defendant who lie was. Bennett replied that he was Lowry's attorney. The constable replied: “T don’t care who you are. You have no right here.” Defendant persisted in slayinb. but ultimately left, several times asking Lowry ‘o make no slalcinent to tlie police and sign nothing. When Bennett lolt, Lowry said that in view of the instructions of his attorney he could not make a statement am! would not sign any statement. It transpired during the evidence for the defence that Bennett was actually l.ifwry's attorney, and that Lowrv had requested him by telephone to call at. the police station.

Til rc-gnnl In the dofoiidani going heltind the counter his Worship said t.hiit people doing this without, invitation might lie rude, hut in this e:i<e they wore not trying u ease of good or liul manners, hut a case ol obstruction Tu this regard the authorities held that, for a case to he established there must he eVidenre ol intent. A man must have intended to ohstruet. f|e did not think it was the intention of the defendant to ohstruet the police. Defendanl went to the shit-ion at the request ol Lowry and merely intended giving him advice as his attorney. As it was a legal holiday at the time l.owry could not get his solicitor. so he got his attorney. The advice given may have heen wrong, nr improper advice, hut the question w; is : Why was it given? His Worship thought that it was not given for the purpose of obstructing the police, hut to keep Lowry out of trouble by not. making anv admission that might lead to a criminal prosecution. The defendant thought that, l.owry was ton distressed to make a statement, and .advised him against doing so to help him. hut not with the intention of obstructing the police. The information would he dismissed. Afr. Scannell (counsel for the defendant) had suggested Hint the action should not have been brought. However. the police evidently thought the defendant intended to ohstruet them.