UNDER A VEIL.

NZ Truth, Issue 1173, 24 May 1928, Page 6

UNDER A VEIL.

Police Methods ■— and An Analysis The deluge of correspondence recently received by "NZ. Truth," and, m the main, strongly depre- - eating certain police methods m . regard to suspected medioal wrongdoers, opens up a very interesting question. TT goes without saying that the New Zealander, notoriously staunch when it comes 'to individual, local or national patriotism, naturally revolts at rampant injustioe or anything suggestive' of coercion. But the general public is apt, at times, to allow Its sense of balance to be submerged by what may be called yellow phraseology. There is no need, to say at once that "Truth" holds no brief for the police • and certainly does not support those who flagrantly violate/ the law, and: incidentally, Jeopardize public health. Juries, who try cases of alleged malpraotice, should represent, m some degree, public sentiment and public opinion. ■ ;. If, then, they choose not to convict' ; m a particular class of case, it is obvious that lay knowledge and lay perl speotlve cannot be applied to a true consideration of the faots. Bhould not these be points worthy of consideration? (1) The greatest good for the greatest number; (2) the wholesome preservation of public health; (3) the maintenance of the laWi , Every man and every woman would not wish to deviate from these prinol- ' pies and yet Juries, hearkening too much to the old stock stuff of good lawyersr-but. often new to Juries—allow their sense of justice to be artificially ruffled. ;;>, • THE OPEN DOOR? :: §^:^l. : 2 Resolutely to set their Individual and collective conscience against a conviction In any olrbumstanoes la to aim a terrible blow at their own kith and kin. Acquittals on purely sentimental reasons are tantamount to opening wide the doors of evil and Inviting all sorts of unscrupulous mohey-grabber« to come In and practice their illegal calllngs, anywhere and everywhere under all sorts of unhygienic conditions and with absolute impunity. |c this desirable? One oor*«a» pondent points to what he terms "the trend of human nature/* If this "trend" is notioaable la our ' social life, then let legislation be framed to meet' it, but the law la do* ( signed very effectively at present to protect the multitude and it must be vigorously enforced— until some better method is devised or until the dawn of the new enlightenment. If a man desires to take his own life, he finds that, legally, it does not belong to him. ' ; . He is not allowed to destroy himself and the law against self- destruction is applied with necessary effectiveness. The same considerations apply to women m trouble. They are not allowed to risk their lives m the hands of . wrongdoers whose first consideration is money, after all. -It is apparent that what 13 considered a vital point among Juries Is the Crown's precedent. of indemnifying accomplices against prosecution, conditional on their giving evidence against an accused person. Admittedly, police methods sometimes go a little too far. An interrogation of a suspected .accomplice, a skilfully (dropped suggestion that "the police know all 1 ' — and many a young woman m that frenzy of terror which knowa no reason, js driven willy-nilly into the witness-box. A case m point was that m which detectives awakened a witness, and, to quote the words used m court, "put the ferar of God into him" by interviewing him under ghostly, if not grotesque, circumstanoes. This sort of thing is a disagreeable ' reflection on the police and their methods. • ! But the principle of indemnifying.accomplices 1b neither new nor unjust. Admittedly, an accomplice like this, . does not deserve one whit of considera- ' : tion, but there is a reason why they often receive it. /

The Grown, and every individual, concerned m its dispensation, know that these accomplices are as bad-— if not worse than — the accused person against whom they appear. , But what other avenues are open to the Crown? The person they want to get at is the man or woman, who, for money, is daily risking the lives of young women. , . This can only be done by th* testimony of someone who has been Illegally operated upon. ; Therefore, on the strict oondlttoa that indemnified -witnesses adheve rigidly to truth, there should be nothing wrong with the principle. Muoh is made of the fact— and it certainly does seem a monstrous thing —that a 'woman who has patronised suoh a person should go into and out of court under the mostjlberal conoessions of secreoy and suspicion. ; But that is not the point. ; '

PUBLIC'S CHOICE

It may be an inequitable and objeotionable side of the business, but the primary question is whether the public generally, and juries m particular, • are m agreement with the law and

want public health protected— ror whe-; ther they desire an ugly, Inordinate,' uncontrollable orgy of illegal operations, with a corresponding fillip m reckless immorality.

Thus narrowed down, it does not leave a great deal of room for the excessive exercise of conscience or imagination. It is well known that many women — m fact and m law accomplices — vow never to divulge the name or identity of the person who has (always for money, of course) assisted to hide their shame. ' : -;

Yet these women appear as mii demnified witnesses against an accused.

There are not too many voluntarystatements made m these matters, but' one can understand how such an accomplice, on suddenly being informed that she is a criminal accomplice, is terrified with fear, and, following the unwritten law of self-preservation, accepts the indemnity of the Crown. / The only point that really merits emphasis is the absolute need for clean, clear and honest methods by the police, on the assumption that if this way is non-effectual m the apprehension of a wrongdoer, then it is better that the suspect went free.

In procuring evidence under the seal of freedom and '.secrecy, it cannot be too emphatically laid down that these witness-accom-plices must free themselves from any sense of obligation to the Crown.

They should *be told so, and also shown this' requirement m writing, so that when they give their evidence ...-. against some alleged evil-doer, there will, at least, be satisfaction m feeling- ' that their testimony hae not been theoretically "bought" and •will be delivered impartially, free from the taint of prejudice or bias — fundamentally, the truth, the whole truth and nothing ' but the truth.. :