STATEMENTS TO POLICE

Hokitika Guardian, 11 May 1926, Page 1

STATEMENTS TO POLICE

THEIR PRODUCTION ORDERED. DUNEDIN, Alay 7. A point of importance in connection with motor collision cases CDine up for consideration in the Supreme Court this morning. Air Adams, on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, made application that a police constable who had been subpoenaed should not bo required to produce certain documents. His Honour said that he slaw no objection to the constable giving evidence of what he had seen. Air Adams suggested that tho constable could not be compelled to produce any statement or documents against tho orders of the Commissioner. Counsel submitted that the documents should not be produced, and further contended that secondary evidence should not bo permissible. The rule was that it was against the public policy for the documents to he produced and their contents gone into, His Honour asked what the documents exactly were. Mr Adams said that they were statements signed by each, of the parties'to

the action Perhaps there was rou

for t"*o views as to whether the tlocumeats should be produced or not. He wished to state, however, that the Commissioner thought they should not be produced. His Honour said he saw no harm in

producing merely tlio statements from each party concerned. After further argument, Air Adams said that in this case the parties were under no compulsion to make statements to the police. lie submitted that a pjolicemun should not bo called upon to produce statements made to

him for the detection cf crime. In reply to Air Adams, His Honour said that the constable would not be asked to give the names of his informants.

'Mr Braseli, who appeared for the plaintiff in. the case, and who had subpoenaed the constable suggested that

the documents were obtained for a specific purpose. They were put in for the purpose either of implicating either party or exonerating either from the consequence of the collision. Ho sub-

mitted that tho documents were to be used for the purpose for which they were made, except that in this case they would be used in a civil and not a criminal action. Both parties desired the production of the documents.

His Honour said he did not see. lion the production of the documents could prejudice anyone. Air Adams said that the point was regarded by the Bar as of great importance.

Air Calkin said that tho point Lad arisen in other cases. His Honour made an order for the production of th© statements made by

the defendant in the case and by plaintiff’s driver. He said that he was not laying down a general rule, but was dealing with the present case.