CONSTABLE DISMISSED

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 541, 19 December 1928, Page 6

CONSTABLE DISMISSED

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES JVAS HE PUNISHED TWICE? Press Association r WELLINGTON, Tuesday. The power of the Commissioner of Police to dismiss from the Police Force a constable who had already been punished for a breach of the police regulations was argued in the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Ostler. Michael Power claimed £2,000 damages from the Crown for alleged wrongful dismissal from the force. Suppliant’s case was that he was a member of the Force from 1911 until the present year. In February last he was charged by the Commissioner with having made improper use of property belonging to the New Zealand Government, contrary to the police regulations. In March an inspector held an inquiry at Greymouth into the. charge, and. although suppliant pleaded not guilty, he was found guilty ami Fined £3. Later in the same month he was advised that th< Commissioner intended to dismiss him, unless he resigned at once. He replied stating he had already paid the penalty, and then received a telegram advising him of his dismissal. The question for the Court was whether suppliant, having already been fined in accordance with the provisions of the Police Force Amendment Act, his dismissal by the Commissioner entitled him to a claim ior damages. Counsel lor Power, Mr. R. K. Trimmer, contended that as suppliant had already bt-en punished by the inspector, the Commissioner had no power to dismiss him. The effect of the dismissal, counsel argued, was to punish Power twice for the came offence. On behalf o£ tho Crown, Mr. C. H. Taylor submitted that the Commissioner had power to dismiss any constable whom he considered unfit to remain in the force, even if he had been punished in some other way by the imposition of a fine. After hearing legal argument, the Court reserved its decision.