THE POLICE FORCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 504, 6 November 1909, Page 3

THE POLICE FORCE.

report of , royal com-

MISSION.

ADMINISTRATION SEVERELY CRITICISED.

The following is a summary of the findings in the report of the Royal Commission on the police, laid on the table of the House on Wednesday : RECOMMENDATIONS. Closer supervision of the training depot at night required. Fuller enquiry should be made into the antecedents of men joining the force. The probationary period should be extended to three months, and married probationers be paid ys 6d a day. No recruit should be finally enrolled until he has completed three months’ probation service on the streets. Pay should commence at 8s a pay and increase by increments of 6d a day every three years until it reaches 9s 6d. Senior constables should receive 10s per day. There should be some degree of elasticity in regard to educational qualifications. Positions should not be “offered” to men ; transfers are too frequent. Weekly classes should be held for all men of less than two years’ service. CONDUCT OF THE FORCE. The conduct generally of the men, the Commissioner finds, has been good. The Commissioner is convinced that a good deal of drinking goes on amongst the younger men, and cases of drunkenness have been dealt with far too leniently. As to morality,' there is little to cavil at. ALLEGED INFLUENCE. The Commissioner considers that a certain amount of political influence has been used with regard to the enrolment of members. The idea of sectarian or Masonic influence is scouted by the Commissioner. There is discontent in the force in regard to PROMOTIONS. The Commissioner recommends that: No. constable should be promoted to the rank of sergeant after he has passed the age ol 45. Station sergeants should be done away with and replaced by senior sergeants, and they and chief detectives should' be eligible for the rank of sub-inspector. The headquarters staff should be replaced by civil servants, and present members of the staff sent to duty outside. , Annual leave should be extended to fifteen days. Recruits, should be instructed in rifle shooting. The Commissioner is not in favour of setting up an appeal board. Travelling allowances should be increased to 8s per day. Departmental enquiries should be conducted on oath. The general conduct of the police is good. OBSOELTE REGULATIONS. The Commissioner remarks that many of the regulations are obso-v lete, useless, and ineffective, and, though Mr Dinnie had recognised for several years the urgent need for revision, nothing was done in the matter. Recent instances of grave misconduct on the part of certain members of the force had created a feeling of unrest and want ot confidence in the force. Alluding to Mr Arnold’s charges regarding the APPOINTMENT OF UNDESIRABLES as constables, Mr Bishop, makes some severe comments. Referring to the case of an Australian criminal mentioned by Mr Arnold, the former says he can see no reason for the Commissioner taking on a man he was not sure of. In another case, Mr Bishop says be doubts very much if the man would ever have been accepted had it not been for the backing he received from a member of Parliament. Of another case, that of an eX-Permanent Artilleryman, he fails to understand why a man insubordinate in one force should be supposed to be fit for another, force shortly afterwards, whatever bis credentials from friends might be. Of still another case, which he describes as “one of the worst I have come across in connection with laxity in admitting men to the police force,” Mr Bishop says: “The profound impression it left on my mind is, that had it not been for the pressure brought to bear by another member of Parliament, the man would never have been accepted. The enquiries made about him were never satisfactory and were never properly completed, and almost every statement the man made about himself was a lie, and he even went to the length of producing documents on behalf of himself that belonged to another man of the same name.' He was finally allowed to resign.” “There have been,” continues the Commissioner, “so many instances lately of men, after admission, proving themselves to be perfect blackguards. and quite unfit for the position of constables that it cannot be wondered at that one should be rather sceptical as to the real value ; of the preliminary enquiries made, even although they might appear prima facie to be quite complete. It is not very satisfying after the event to be assured by the Commissioner of Police that every undesirable, as soon as discovered, has promptly received his conge.” Going fully into the case of a constable who was charged with robbing a drunken man, and, after various transfers allowed to resign,

while the constable who complained about him was transferred, and, on complaining, was severely reprimanded and fined Mr Bishop characterises this as “one of the most glaring instances I have come across of

“INEPT ADMINISTRATION.” Dealing at length with the Com missioner of Police, Mr Bishop says : “As he (the Commissioner) evidently wished it to be implied that he was responsible for the setting up of this Commission, it is, perhaps, a little inconsistent that he should on certain occasions have shown a disposition to impede rather than assist the work oi the enquiry.” Mr Bishop adds: “That the Commissioner has a long and honourable police record no one can possibly doubt, but whether long actual police experience necessarily qualifies a man for the successful administration of a force such as ours is a matter of opinion. A man must be gauged by the result of his work. Where I have found it necessary to differ considerably from the Commissioner’s views on certain matters, and to criticise adversely certain phases of his administration, I have done so with regret, for I fully recognise that in everything he has done he has acted honestly, with the best intentions, and with a due regard which he believed, however mistakenly, to be in the best interest of the force,” “The Commissioner,” Mr Bishop says in another place, “makes the astounding statement that there is no general dissatisfaction in the force. Why, the evidence is full of instances in which men have come forward and expressed the gravest dissatisfaction, and it would certainly be unfair to term these men what the Commissioner thinks proper to call‘agitators.’” Again, he says: “The Commissioner takes credit to himsesf for considerably improving the efficiency of the force after he took over charge from ex-Com-missioner Tunbridge. Whether the credit can be justly claimed must be taken by the evidence. There is no doubt, I take it, that the force was highly efficient when Mr Tunbridge left it, and it is unfortunate that a commission of enquiry should have to sit upon it to-day. THE FUTURE. In the course of his concluding remarks Mr Bishop says that the position of several officers, if left as they are, will be perfectly impossible, and grave trouble may arise. What, he asks, is going to be the position of certain men who have given evidence adverse to their superiors ? ‘‘l can do no ipore,” he says, “than leave the position here in the hands of those in authority, with an earnest injunction to grapple honestly and sincerely with any difficulties that have arisen, so that no feeling of soreness may continue or risk of doing injustice may arise, but that all may work together for the benefit of the force that, taken as a whole, is A CREDIT TO THE DOMINION. and that, properly handled, will still further enhance its reputation. DISCUSSED IN THE HOUSE* , When the report of the Commissioner was tabled in the House this afternoon, Mr Arnold explained that the course taken by him was not antagonistic to Mr Dinnie, and he regretted that that officer had made a personal matter of it The charges made by him (Mr Arnold) were serious, but not reckless, and if half of them were proved he was justified in making them. Mr Dinnie’s statement that all the charges made were absolutely baseless was absurd, but worse still was Mr Dinnie’s statement that he had laid a trap for public men who were enquiring into the state of the force.. He was'satisfied, whatever the report might be, that new heads were required for the Police Department. The whole head office ought to be reorganised. Mr T. E. Taylor (Christchurch) reviewed Commissioner Bishop’s finding in several of the charges. Since the D.I.C. scandal at Dunedin he had doubts as to the capacity of Commissioner Dinnie. Mr Taylor gave instances of laxity of discipline existing in the force, and improper methods of promotion. One ot the most important matters in the report was the state of the headquarters staff, which was seriously affecting the morals of the entire force. Mr Bishop’s recommendations with regard to Mr Dinnie himself were that the Commissioner was grossly incompetent, and he failed to see how the Executive could retain his services.

. Mr Herdman, referring to the state of the force under Mr Tunbridge, said that officer had resigned rather than submit to dictation of Ministers of the Crown. In the present case the Ministry was responsible and could not make a scapegoat of the Commissioner* Mr Wilford said the police force of the Dominion was as good as any in the world. He did not believe one charge of bribery and corruption was brought before the Commission. Mr Bishop had not taken up the proper attitude in declining to recognise Mr Dinnie’s status.

Mr Massey said he would not discuss the report, as the House had not yet had an opportunity to read the report. le was an extraordinary tning that while this was so, the report was published by the Press and available' to the outside public. This was a very unfair position to place the House in. Sir Joseph, Ward, in reply, said he had hoped members would have waited till they had copies of the report in their hands before discussing it. The Government’s

proposals in regard to the report would be placed before the House, when an opportunity would be given to discuss the whole matter. Referring to Mr Hefdmen’s remarks, he said these were contrary to fact, and showed bias. Mr Herdman blamed Ministers lot interfering with the force, and then blamed them for not interfering. Sir Joseph Ward read from the report showing that the charges of political influence were unfounded. He denied that Ministers of the Crown had interfered unduly with Commissioner Tunbridge. The Ministers in charge of the Department at the time may have reversed the Commissioner’s decision. He was entitled to do that, and had to accept his responsibilities It was absurd to suggest that if a Minister responsible to Parliament and the people reversed a decision of his subordinates he would be interfering improperly with them. The Government had not yet arrived at a conclusion in regard to the recommendations embodied in the report. Mr Arnold was right in calling for the enquiry, and the Government had done its duty in appointing the Commission and having the whole matter cleared up. Mr W. Dinnie, Commissioner of Police, intends to prepare a statement covering the allegations contained in Mr H. W. Bishop’s report to Parliament concerning the police force. Mr Dinnie will ask the Minister of Justice to lay bis statement on the table of the House.