Lurking Danger

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 389, 25 June 1928, Page 8

Lurking Danger

TEMPTER IN POLICE METHODS Evidence Course Suggested IN liis endeavour correctly to assess the origin of specific crimes, the New Zealand police officer is faced with a variety of temptations. Of these, over enthusism to convict a suspected person is perhaps the greatest ; and while the morale of the force here is high, eminent law authorities have suggested the application of greater attention to giving and accepting evidence in the criminal courts of this country.

Justifiable congratulations are handed New Zealand for the absence of third degree methods in the administration of its police force, but it cannot be said with assurance that police evidence in this country is not subject to the same criticism that is being directed against it elsewhere. Recent cases in England have produced allegations which, if correct, are sufficient to create in the minds of the people a substantial fear of grave abuse of justice. On the other hand, there is a prevalent, and decidedly human, tendency on the part of accused persons to give the court an impression that they were forced into confession of crime of which they are innocent. CAUTION DELAYED People who are visited at their homes by police officers may refuse to give information asked for, and detention for the purpose of extracting evidence is strictly against the

law. Immediately the police suspect a person of an offence they are investigating, however, they are bound to warn the informant that if he says anything it is liable to be used in evidence against him. It is in this department of criminal investigation that the greatest temptation presents itself to the conscientious officer —particularly when he is convinced in his own mind that his man is guilty, yet when the evidence is palpably weak. It is admitted by those who are closely in touch with the law in this Dominion that the caution in some cases may be unduly delayed, and it

is claimed that abuses of the interrogation process is being practised in England. There are, on the other hand, no reasonable grounds to suppose that third degree methods are being adopted in New Zealand. TEMPTATION TO INVENT One of the most concise statements covering this temptation of the police to “strengthen” the evidence against a prisoner whom they are convinced is guilty is outlined in the “New Zealand Law Journal,” in quoting Mr. A. H. Lieck, clerk in an Old Country court. One quality of a well-organised police force was a strong esprit de corps, he said As regards the police officer in the witness box, that esprit de corps was a drawback. It allowed undue support being given by one police officer to another. An officer with a tendency to untruthfulness would hardly get his propensity corrected if he could rely on his more truthful comrades to stretch a point rather than “let him down.” “There is a tendency for police officers to stereotype their testimony,” he went on. “There is a lurking danger that cases different in small hut important details would be treated as members '■ f a class of cases. The classification was an unconscious process in the officer’s mind, but it might be vital to his truthfulness. “I have never con. across an instance of a police charge shown to have been made in bad faith; but police officers ‘strengthen’ their evidence against men whom they know to be guilty. They fail to grasp the propriety of letting off a guilty man against whom the evidence is weak. Human testimony in general has the defect of the substitution of inference for observation. Police corroboration was often of little value. Officers had plenty of opportunity to acquaint themselves with one another’s evidence, and undoubtedly did so. Apart from any wilfulness, the ‘corroborator’ had nearly always heard the ‘charger’ give his account to the inspector in the charge-room. Under the pressure of cross-examination, officers invented details. They were foolishly reluctant to say T don’t know.’ ” It is conceded, of course, that on the whole the police are as truthful as a type as any other men, but they are trained in observation, and not in the expression of what they observe. This, together with the belief that impartiality is the product of character rather than of education, raises doubts upon the efficacy of special training in the presentation of evidence. It is well, however, for the people of this country to have before them the advice of law authorities, who point out that the comparative purity of method inspired by the honesty, conscientiousness, and capability of the New Zealand police officer should be jealously watched by the police heads lest any defect, even if it does not now appear in evidence, should creep in.