POLICE METHODS

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 47, 18 May 1927, Page 11

POLICE METHODS

MORE CRITICISM TAKING OF STATEMENTS JUDGE REBUKES COUNSEL Criticism of the methods employed by the police in taking statements from persons in connection with inquiries into offences has frequently been made of late by various members of the legal profession. The point was again raised during the retrial of Ernest Edwin Leaning at the Supreme Court yesterday, when Mr. A. H. Johnstone, counsel for the defence, referred to it in the course of hit address to the jury. In the case in question, Mr. Johnstone said that questions had been put to the accused, and the answers taken down. Counsel said he was not alone in his criticism of this system, which had been disapproved of by judges. RULES LAiD DOWN Mr. Justice Herdman: Rules have been laid down on this question by judges in England at the request of the Home Secretary, and police officers are bound to follow them. There is no objection to questions being put and answers taken down. If this were not allowed it would be “goodbye” to crime. Mr. Johnstone: Not even a judge or a magistrate can cross-examine a man. His Honour; You must not say that, Mr. Johnstone. You have no right to make an observation of that sort; no right whatever. Mr. Johnstone: I am sorry if 1 appear to be disrespectful. His Honour: Well you do appear to be. You had better go on with your address. You can say what you like, but I will tell the jury what the latest authorities in England say. VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS Referring in his summing-up to the matter his Honour stated that the latest and highest authority one could get was Rex v. Cooke in 1918. In certain rules laid down by the judges it was considered that a statement made by an accused person was evidence If it was made voluntarily. The statement in the present case was made voluntarily. His Honour also said that the Court of Appeal had stated that it would be lamentable if the police were not allowed to make inquiries because of the shadowy notion that a prisoner would not make a statement if left to himself. No police officer could be prevented from questioning a person in the course of his inquiries if he thought a person could be of assistance. It was laid down that if an officer was to charge anyone, the person must be warned before being asked for a statement. In the present case, added his Honour, the detective had not made up his mind to arrest accused when he interviewed him.