“MELODRAMATIC”

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 52, 24 May 1927, Page 1

“MELODRAMATIC”

Police Commissioner Criticised For Talk of Thieves’ Dens

SOME SHARP COMMENT Strong comment was expressed in Auckland to-day regarding the statement by Mr. W. B. Mcl Iveney, Commissioner for Police, that this city “is being swept by a crime wave from one end to the other." Mention of a crime wave is news to Aucklanders, likewise the information that the local police are quite unable to cope with the situation. If such conditions do exist, and this was strenuously denied, it was suggested that this was an interesting reflection upon Mr. Mcllveney’s own administration. Why had he permitted the fair name of Auckland to be besmirched in such a manner? That pilfering had been on the increase was generally admitted, for which unemployment was possibly to blame. The general impression seemed to be that Mr. Mcllveney did not take into consideration the fact, when making his melodramatic pronouncement in Wellington, that Auckland has rapidly expanded within recent years. With an increase in population correspondingly comes an increase in crime. It was likewise pointed out that the Auckland Supreme Court Is the tribunal for the largest population in the Dominion.

“'T'HE comment of the Commissioner in regard to Grey Street is rather absurd," declared Mr. R. A. Singer, Auckland’s leading criminal pleader, “as the conditions in this street have been entirely revolutionised during my residence in Auckland. The comment of the Commissioner might equally apply to almost any street in any city in the Dominion."

Mr. Singer also declared that the outbreak of burglaries in Auckland had been stemmed by the local police force without the assistance of any proposed additions to the staff. UNFAIR CRITICISM Criticism had certainly come from certain judges regarding crime in Auckland, said Mr. Singer, but it had been made by those who were not actually resident in the city. “Such comment seems to me to have been unfair. The critics do not seem to realise that the Auckland Supreme Court is the tribunal serving the largest district in New Zealand, also that Auckland has the largest population in the Dominion," he remarked. Auckland had a population at least three times greater than that served by any other Supreme Court in the Dominion. “That being so, it must be realised that the criminal population must necessarily be proportionately greater," said Mr. Singer. The Commissioner’s indictment of Auckland was characterised as “quite unfounded." “I think that my experience in connection with the matters referred to by Mr. Mcllveney entitles me to say that there has never been a more competent force of police or detectives in Auckland since I have resided in the city," he added. From time to time there were naturally periods of unusual difficulty. Mr. Singer suggested that Mr. Mcllveney might possibly be experiencing such a period. ONLY ONE POLICEMAN If Auckland is experiencing a crime wave, why is it that Remuera, a populous and wealthy suburb, has only one policeman? This is the view put forward by Mr. J. J. Kingston, Auckland manager for the South British Insurance Company. As far as he was aware, said Mr. Kingston, there was no crime wave. There was certainly a good deal of petty pilfering, but he thought unemployment in the city might have had something to do with that. Also not a few motor-cars were stolen. But as far as burglary policies were concerned, he said, really very few were taken out in Auckland. “We have had more trouble with fires,’ added Mr. Kingston, “and have been inclined to believe that some of them were not pure accidents." Even so, he pointed out, the majority of fires took place in the suburbs, or country districts, and were not reported from the city.

If conditions were such as Commissioner Mcllveney declared them to be, suggested Mr. Kingston, why had he, as head of the police force, permitted them to reach such a position?

If anybody should be sympathetic toward the utterances of Commissioner Mcllveney it should be Canon Grant Cowen, vicar of St. Matthew’s, in whose parish is Auckland’s “criminal district.”

During five years’ occupancy of St. Matthew’s the vicar has had burglars in the vicarage on no fewer than five occasions. Only once were the thieves apprehended. These were men, too, who had been befriended by the vicar and watched the vicarage for a suit-

able opportunity to enter in the ab sence of his family.

Even these days it is not unusual for the vicarage meat to disappear mysteriously from the safe. Yet Canon Grant Cowen is convinced that the majority of wrongdoers in Auckland are not Aucklanders at all. Petty pilfering, he admits, has increased. But as a city increased in size and importance so did its crime increase. CRIMINALS FROM SYDNEY “My experience has been that criminals from Sydney and from different parts of New Zealand come to Auckland. It is a direct port of call and its geographic position naturally attracts these men, who very often come here to hide,” says the vicar. Still, Canon Grant Cowen does not agree that Auckland conditions are as bad as the Commissioner makes out. “If repeating a statement four or five times is any evidence of its truth, then Mr. Commissioner Mcllveney has proved his proposition to demonstration, said Mr. L. F. Leary, Auckland barrister and solilctor, who personally has no knowledge of any crime wave in this city.

“One would expect in a city of sudden expansion in size that there would be a considerable increase in lawlessnes,” added Mr. Leary, “but those competent to judge would be either insurance managers who undertake burglary policies, or solicitors who specialise in police court work.” “To say that Auckland is being swept with crime is a gross exaggeration, in my opinion,” said the Rev. J. Lamb Harvey, of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church. “I see no ground for the statement, except the unusual number of burglaries of late. Apart from this element of dishonesty, I have found nothing to prove that the general moral condition of the city is showing a change for the worse. It is no worse than in other years. There seems to be no reason for the Commissioner’s indictment.” “No statement should be made until an investigation of the statistics of crime has been made,” said the president of the Auckland Law Society, Mr J. B. Johnston, “But I must say that when I read the report of the Commissioner’s speech, I thought the picture very much over-painted. If the position is as bad as the Commissioner suggests, it is a remarkable thing that additional police protection

has not been given to the city earlier.” “However there is no doubt that the prc%'ision of extra police is a wise rue, and it will undoubtedly have the effect of limiting the operations of criminals,” he concluded. “UNFAIR AND UNJUST.” “Unfair and nnjust.” That is how some of the Auckla C poli e described the Commissic: remarks. They were particularly guarded in their statements, but it was evident that the men regarded the comment on Auckland and its policemen with .'onsiderable indignation. One of the remarks to which they objected was the Commissioner's statement that the men were as numerous as telegraph poles in Auckland. This was hardly fair, considering the population of the city and its constantljr-ctmnging lhabitants. ..ne comparisons with Australia were also the subject of more guarded comment. It was remarked by one man that in Australia the Police Force is i.t called upon to spend a great deal of its time in pursuing inauiries for other Government departments. This ._>-

parently keeps many of the men busy when they might be performing their rightful duty of ousting the criminal. Coming on top of a “clean-up” by the police, the statement is rather curious. During the last few weeks the Auckland police have been very busy, and most successful, in clearing up much of the crime which, for a time, seemed to be a blot on the city.

The actual strength of the detective branch in Auckland is 20, birr of these only about nine are activeI}’ 1 }’ engaged in the pursuit of crime—the others are employed mostly on doparemental inquiries. There are always cases of sickness and ill-healcb, which again deplete the working stuff.

Frequent comment has been heard of the detectives having to prosecute trivial cases which have been brought forward by the u '?•- form branch of the Force. This is a waste of time and could quite well be left alone by the detectives.

“WAR TO DEATH”-

CITY MUST EE CLEARED

COMMISSIONER’S DECLARATION (From Our Resident Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Monday. An outspoken speech was made today by the Commissioner of Police, Mr. W. B. Mcllveney, at a farewell to Detectives Hunt and Sinclair, who have bsen transferred to Auckland to cope with what has been termed “the criminal wave in that city.” The commissioner emphasised that, despite “police in Auckland being everywhere, criminals were getting the upper hand. It must now be war to the death, and the city must be cleaned up. It should never have been allowed to get in the condition it is. Auckland has more police than any other part of New Zealand, and yet they could not prevent crime.” The criminals, he said, must be prevented from associating and must be thrown into prison. It was useless to complain when too late. Crime must be prevented. That was why he was sending up five detectives to add to the 28 plain-clothes men already in Auckland. Within a stone’s throw' of the Central Police Station was the notorious Grey Street with its dens of thieves. Such a grave state of affairs could not be allowed to exist any longer. Something would have to be done, and the housebreaker, thief, trickster and other rogues and scoundrels would have to be laid low. GREY STREET AN EXAMPLE Continuing, Mr. Mcllveney said that the other night he had read that detectives were cleaning up Grey Street. That, of course, was very nice, for everyone liked a little praise now and then. At the same time, if the criminals were in gaol, instead of infesting various dens, these robberies would not occur. Fifteen years ago Grey Street was a living bed of crime. It was cleared, however, and when it was in a clean state it should have been kept clean. Grey Street should be made an example of. “In New Zealand,” said Mr. Mcllveney, “we have what is known as the vagrancy clause under the Police Offences Act, an Act •which is second to none in all His Majesty’s Dominions. That Act frees our hands and allows us to act where we would otherwise be handicapped. We can get hold of the criminal before lie commits a fresh crime, and ‘if he is living dishonestly, he can be put in gaol. Last year I managed, after a very hard fight, to get the consorting clause in—a clause you all know, which gives us power—a power to keep the place clean and get the criminal out of the way, and help to protect the public’s property. Well, with that clause in, we should stamp out crime, and not let in increase.

“There are many things we can do under the vagrancy clause, things which the police can do nowhere else. If a man has a thousand pounds in his pocket, he can be taken into custody, and, before he is free, he must show the

Bench how he got that money and how he is living.” NOT GOING TO BEAT US

Auckland, besides police here, there and everywhere, had 28 plain-clothes men, continued Mr. Mcllveney, and with the five other detectives, there would be 33 —as many as Queensland had to cope with a population of SSO.OOO people. There the police were keeping the crime down, but in Auckland it was getting worse, and it would have to be put down for the sake of the public and for the sake of right. “The criminal in Auckland is not going to beat us,” the commissioner added, “and if he thinks he can do what he likes we will let him think the matter over in gaol. Thirty-three detectives should keep the place clean, as 28 should be able to do. If the present number, however, cannot cope properly with the evil we will have to send more up there.”