Police Information

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26638, 8 December 1947, Page 4

Police Information

—The Daily Times— FORUM

“Is the Suppression of Information by the Police Inimical to the Public Interest? ’’ The question has been raised in direct form by more than one' crime involving violence or menace in New Zealand in recent months. In the Forum this week three prominent city barristers give their replies to this risters give their views, based on a wide experience.

First Barrister “Is the suppression of information by the police. inimical to the publicinterest? ” This is a difficult and highly debatable question. It has caused much discussion as the result of a recent unfortunate tragedy in Wellington. I say, without hesitation, and in fairness to the police, that it is quite wrong for the public to take the responsibility, and it is a serious responsibility, of condemning police officers, because they decide to remain secretive about any one case, or about any particular aspect of it. They may have very good reasons for withholding information, which may prejudice, or indeed ruin, their chances of following up some particular clue, or of securing some missing link in the chain of proof necessary to warrant making an arrest. If the general public continues to clamour for information regarding unsolved crimes or possible crimes so strenuously as to force the hands of the authorities in this respect, it seems to me that the police would be justified either in giving the information, irrespective of the consequences, or of giving false or equivocal information tft the press, which would be highly objectionable from every

point of view. Nor is it possible always to be wise after an event in such a case, because almost invariably the investigation of a serious crime involves the consideration of an immense amount of material, only a fraction of which will prove admissible at the actual trial. On the other hand, it must be conceded that many notorious crimes in England, in the United States of America, and, no doubt, in other countries, have been solved largely through the assistance given to the police by the press. After due consideration of the question submitted to me, I have come to the conclusion that it becomes a question more of personality than of principle. During my 30 years of close personal and professional contact with police officers I have found that sotne of them work in harmony with the newspapers whenever possible, and rely implicitly on the integrity and good sense of the press not to publish anything which may prove injudicious or prejudicial to the inquiries. I may add that I personally have never known of a case where that trust has been betrayed. Unfortunately, the majority of police officers, no doubt actuated by a high sense of public duty, appear to regard the red tape of their numerous police regulations as bonds rather than as guiding ropes, and co-operate as little as possible with the press in their investigations. I do think that such an attitude is unfortunate to say the least both from the point of view of the public, and ultimately from the point of view of the police themselves. To my mind, a healthy and trusting collaboration between the police and the press is both necessary and desirable, and, if such a state of affairs were fostered, the public would have more faith in the police system, and these unfortunate,, and frequently quite unwarranted criticisms, would cease to be made. In conclusion, I wish to make it clear that the above criticism is not directed in any shape or form against the officers who are conducting the investigation into the Wellington case, but is general only in its purpose—m further fairness to those officers, I think I should add that I have not the slightest idea of their identity.

Second Barrister I assume that the question really is whether the police should suppress information concerning their knowledge of criminal acts in a particular locality (of which there have been recent instances in Wellington and Dunedin), with the result that the public might, ignorant of danger, expose themselves to needless risk in these localities. A moment’s consideration makes it apparent that the police in such cases are confronted • with a conflict of two aspects of their duty to the public.- If by press warnings or similar publicity the public were appraised of repeated criminal happenings in a certain locality, then a limited section of the public would have a greater chance of avoiding this particular risk. At the same time it must be realised that this publication would serve to warn the criminal sufficiently to deter him from early repetitions, and consequently he would probably evade capture, perhaps to commit worse crimes with impunity in another locality later. For the protection of the public as a whole his capture and punisnment is probably as'important as the protection of the public in a limited district or area. When these opposing circumstances are considered it becomes clear that each case must be determined solely on its merits, as indeed I believe they are, and we have recent instances of this in England, where the police definitely prejudiced any possibility of apprehension of a dangerous criminal believing that for the moment the possibility of repetition of his act was so likely that the greater duty to the public was to warn them at once of danger. If it is agreed that each case must be decided on its merits this, then, raises the question of who should exercise this discretion, and it must be conceded at once that nobody is in a better position to exercise this discretion than experienced police officers whose whole duties and energies are directed towards the protection of the public. Whether or not the police officers are authorised to make disclosures to the public in such cases is not known, but it is felt that they should be in cases where imminent risk of repetition of a criminal act is obviously great; in other words, that the public or _ any section of it should not be permitted to be used unwittingly as decoys in the apprehension of a criminal. If this was not the full scope of the question submitted then I would like to raise another issue which is the practice of the police of the suppression of all facts in their possession upon which they intend to prosecute when they have arrested and charged a member of the public with an offence. There seems to be no proper reason for such a practice except in so far as such facts concern matters still under inquiry which might be the subject of further charges, and it would seem to me to be fair to the accused person that, he should know the full case against him and have an opportunity to answer it properly instead of being confronted, as he is at his trial, for the first time with a case against him when there is no opportunity for him to investigate the facts or call evidence to rebut them. It is not a prosecutor’s duty to ensure conviction at all costs, but merely to act fairly in the administration of justice and the maintenance of order, and it is, in fact, part of the prosecutor’s duty to present to the court aspects of a case favourable to the accused as well as those incriminating him. If an accused person is guilty, the facts upon which it is proposed to prove his guilt should be strong enoygh to stand by themselves and be submitted to inquiry, and if they are not, then it would seem that he is entitled to acquittal.

Third Barrister

It all depends on the circumstances of each particular case. In the investigation of crime in New Zealand, the police have, in the main, acted wilh ability and discretion. To apprehend the criminal so as to prevent him from doing further harm is their first consideration, and obviously is in the interests of the community. Publicly to disclose all information possessed by

the police might in certain cases defeat this object. On. the'other hand, there may be cases where the fullest disclosure would either assist the police in obtaining needed information, or would discourage the wrong-doer and so prevent the commission of further crime. It is very like the editor’s censoring pencil (hanging over me as 1 write this like the sword of Damocles), a matter of judgment and discretion, and I would hesitate to think that the police are devoid of these, qualities.