POLICE v. PEOPLE.

NZ Truth, Issue 74, 17 November 1906, Page 8

POLICE v. PEOPLE.

Brutally Bashed with Baton and Handcuffs.

The Devilish Doings of Two Constables.

Dunedin Magistrate Suggests an Inquiry.

From what transpired at the Dunedin Police Court last Saturday, Police Commissioner Dinnie will fail m the duty he owes to the public if he does not instantly and ignominiously kick out of the foroe two brutal, bludgeoning boddies named Young and Roach, who do duty at South Dunedin.

In addition to an exhibition of brutishness this precious pair of peelers do not seem to have drawn the line at wicked and corrupt perjury. Therefore, they are a danger and a menace to public safety, and as it is not expected that they should be prosecuted for either assault or perju'y, at least they should be removed from the position of police constables. Prevention is always better than cure, and a salutary lesson to

THESE BATON-BASHERS may act as a deterrent to others of their sort. Some policemen— and there are many of this class m New Zealand— -are far too handy with their baitons and handcuffs, and use them on the slightest provocation. As ' a matter of fact the "darbies" are a deadly weapon, carcable of inflicting great injury and maiming a man for life and ,as offensive and defensive weapons Police Commissioner Dinnic should prohibit their 'use. The police are i provided with batons for their own ! protection. They are to be used m ! self-defence, but previous -experience has shown that too often the brutish bobby draws and bashes where there was absolutely no occasion for it. ■ . • .

Such seems to be the case at Dunedin and what is mare, and infinitely worse, the- two noliceman m question tried to cover up their tracks by perjury. The Magistrate. Mr Graham, S.M., showed his appreciation of the precious pair's worth by dismissing two charges' that had been preferred against a prisoner and, further, practically ordered an investigation into the conduct of the two constables.

The prisoner, the individual bashed with baton and handcuffs, is a man named Maurice Roach. He was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct m King Edward Road on November 9. He pleaded Not Guilty, and was defended by Mr Emslie.

.The evidence Riven by Police Constable Young; was that as he was walking on his beat on the evening referred to, he nassed two men, one of whom was the accused. Witness coughed as he passed the men, and the accused mimicked him, but witness took no notice of the act and passed on. The two men then followad him, and the accused said : "You're looking lor me, aren't you?" and witness replied that he was not. The accused afterwards used threatening and violent language, and witness arrested him. There was a struggle, and witness and the accused fell to the ground. The accused, who was drunk, , strugcled for some time and then collapsed. ' ,

The accused had a very bad cut on the back of his head and his counsel tackled Young about it ; but Young positively swore that he did not strike the man with either his baton or his handcuffs, while Roach was PROSTRATE ON THE GROUND.

At the Police Station Roach's condition was so' serious that Dr. Bloom .field was called m, but ; Constable Young could not say who it was that sent for the doctor ; of one thing, however, >he was certain it was not the police ; which led Mr Emslie to remark that there had been too many deaths m police cells, and to strongly condemn the action of the police m tjhis and m other matters.

While Younf had his prisoner on the ground, a constable named Roach came on the scene. Xc swore that he saw no blows struck, and accounted for the accused's collapse by his struggle with Young. The accused, giving evidence on his own behalf, stated that Constable Young passed him when he was standing with a youn~ man named Carter on Friday night. The constable coughed and he coughed m mimicry. The constable passed on, and the two of them followed. The constable again coughed, and he again mimicked. Carter went towards a billiard room, and the constable - pulled out something and struck him (accused) on the head. He got up, and the constable closed with him, and they both fell to the ground, where the constable again struck him repeatedly with the handcuffs. He remembered Constable Roach coming up to where they were struggling, and then he remembered nothioi"- more till the.. police cell was reached, and the doctor was -there. He had never attenip-i ted to strike the constable, and he was not under the influence of drink, though he had had three drinks during the evening, His state of collapse was due to the blows he received: : : p? r . . : ■■ ; ■'•: . \, .. -.?.,■ William Carter, accused's ' comr ; panion, gave corroborative evidence of the occurrence for the defence, and stated that when accused, was carried away he was unconscious and his head was hanging down. Constable Young had something m his hand when he struck the accused. The weapon the CONSTABLE STRUCK THE MAN with he took from the back of his coat. • . . . . , Station-Sergeant Kinjs pointed out that constables carried their batons m front of their uniforms, and not at the back. In dismissing the charges the Magistrate said there was no corroborative evidence. With regard to accused's allegation that he had been struck with a baton and handcuffs, his Worship said : "Serious allegations, whether true or not, have been made. I think it will be the duty of the police to make inquiries, and it might be well to ask Dr. Blomfield (who saw the man m. the cell) whether the cut was likely to be caused by a fall or not. In my own .judgment the wound does not seem to have been caused by striking the kerb." '