Police Constable’s Conduct Criticised

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 116, 6 August 1927, Page 10

Police Constable’s Conduct Criticised

PERSECUTION ALLEGED

rpHAT Constable Victor Scandrett had carried out his threat to kick hirr in the stomach, and further, had wrongfully

arrested him, were among the varied allegations which Arthur Marmaduke Mansell made against the constable in the Police Court yesterday afternoon.

gCANDRETT and Mansell have met three times, beginning on April 12, and each time their meetings were fateful. The story of persecution was told to Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., when Mansell was charged with using obscene and indecent langutige and resisting arrest. Mr. L. I\ Leary appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty, and Sub-Inspector Lewin prosecuted. UP GOES THE CURTAIN Constable Scandrett said that a little after midniglit on June 5 he was standing at the corner of Pitt and Beresford Streets watching the people leaving a cabaret. He saw Mansell leave the hall with another man named Bushby, and they both came over to witness. Mansell said, “Gcod evening,” and I replied, ‘‘Good Morning,” said the constable. Then Mansell said, “What the h is the matter with you, Scandrett?" “I told him I didn't want to talk to him,” said the witness, “and I turned away.” AN ARREST AND A CHASE The constable said that Mansell then used obscene language, so he placed him under arrest. Swinging round, he broke away, and witness went after him. Hampered by his heavy night duty coat, witness could not run fast, and a small crowd standing by, hooted him. He saw Mansell hidden behind a tree in Grey Street, and gave chase again, but Mansell was finally picked up by a motor car and got clear. The constable then began to give an account of an unsavoury incident in which Mansell figured. Mr. Leary: I object to this sort of thing straight away. The constable knows what is coming and he wants to get in first. The magistrate refused to hear this evidence and ruled it irrelevant. GOADING ALLEGED Mr. Leary (cross-examining the constable) : When you come to a man you generally do something to provoke him—that is so, isn’t it? The constable denied that it was so. Mr. Leary: He goaded a man named Kelleher, and is not fit to wear the uniform. Mr. Leary then resumed his crossexamination. “On April 12 you threatened to kick this man's stomach (it wasn’t that) out?” “That is not so,” replied the constable. “NOT FIT FOR FORCE” In opening the defence, Mr. Leary said he approached the case with a real sense of responsibility as the defence was an attack upon a member of the Police Force. It was unfortunate that some constables, through inexperience or youth, did the uniform very little credit. “I’ll say this man is not fit to wear the uniform,” said Mr. Leary. “The constable had no right to lay hands on Mansell, and the real reason why he did not carry out the arrest was that he did not wish to carry on his assault upon Mansell in the presence of a crowd. “I challenge the police,” said Mr. Leary, “to put this young man’s record before the court, because he is the most coreplained-of officer in Auckland. “A policeman corning into court has an enormous advantage because his evidence is believed in preference to a defendant's. But in the box, Constable Scandrett behaved with effrontery, and indicated a desire to give offence.” EVIDENCE BARRED Mr. Leary then called the man Kelleher to give evidence that Scandrett

had endeavoured to provoke him, when he had found him ignoring a traffic by-law. Sub-Inspector Lewin objected to the evidence, and the magistrate ruled it as inadmissible. POLICEMAN’S “PERSECUTIONS” Mansell, in evidence, said he first met Scandrett on April 12, when he was returning from a dance given by the City Football Club. He was carrying six jerseys, which had been worn by the orchestra, over his arm. A constable, whom he later knew as Scandrett, jumped from a doorway and said: “Where the h did sTou$ T ou get those jerseys?” "I replied that it had nothing to do with him,” said the witness. “The constable then threatened to kick his —stomach? out.” When witness turned into Liverpool Street the constable kicked him in the stomach and on the back. Another constable, who saw the incident, gave witness Scandrett’s number, and advised him to report it. AFTER THE DANCE Just after midnight on June 5 witness said he came away from the Music Box Cabaret, and standing talking when Scandrett came over to him. They exchanged evening greeting and then Scandrett told him to get to h—out of it. He then threatened to arrest witness for drunkennesss. “I told him I had as much right to the footpath as anyone,” said Mansell, “and I was not under the influence of liquor. “Scandrett then caught me by the arms, but I wrenched myself free, and after doing so, I used obscene language to him. When I ran away he threw his baton after me.” NOT DRUNK After this, witness went to the Police Station, and told a sergeant that Scandrett threatened to arrest him for drunkenness, and the sergeant said he was not drunk. Sub-Inspector Lewin: You are wellknown in Auckland? “Yes,” replied witness. “You are a respectable citizen with a wife and family?” “Yes, that is so.” “Yet, when a constable kicks you, you make no complaint?” “No, not until I had to,” said Mansell. Andrew Charlton, who was in a mo-tor-car in Symonds Street early one morning with Mansell and others, said that Scandrett came across to the car; flashed his torch, and asked if there was any “boozing” going on. “I thought his conduct over the fence,” added the witness. ANOTHER WITNESS ASTRAY Mr. Leary, who had subpoenaed Constable Walsh, who was alleged to have seen the kicking incident asked Sub-Inspector Lewin to call him, so that he (counsel) would be able to cross-examine him. Sub-Inspector Lewin refused to do this, and said that Constable Walsh had made a statement denying that he had seen anything. Mr. Leary: When did he make that statement? “To-day,” replied the sub-inspector. Mr. Leary: That statement differs from the one he made to me. The Magistrate: So you’re now trying to blacken another policeman’s character. Mr. Leary refused to call the constable without being able to cross-ex-amine him, so his evidence remained unheard. The magistrate did not give judgment, as he wished to refer to evidence previously heard. Mr. Leary: Will you suppress this man’s name in the meantime?—Your Worship has not yet given judgment. Mr. McKean: My mind is pretty well made up, so I will not suppress the name.