POLICE METHODS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 10 December 1940, Page 6

POLICE METHODS

INQUIRY BY COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP AND ORDER OF REFERENCE. QUESTION RAISED BY CHIEF JUSTICE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. The personnel and order of reference of a commission of inquiry which is to report on the conduct of the police investigations in. a case which came before the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court, Wellington, on November 27 were announced last night by the Prime Minister and Minister in Charge of Police, Mr Fraser. The case was one of a young woman who had pleaded guily to permitting the unlawful use of an instrument and attempting to conceal birth. The members of the commission are as follows: His Honour Mr Justice Ostler, judge of the Supreme Court (chairman). Mr H. H. Cornish, K.C., SolicitorGeneral. Mr H. F. O'Leary, K.C., president of the New Zealand Law Society. The remarks of the Chief Justice which gave rise to the inquiry were as follows: ‘'This case calls for strict inquiry. It calls, in my opinion, for something more than departmental inquiries. I don’t intend to prejudge it in any way. I cannot do that. I do not know the various sides of it, but it calls for inquiry by a competent tribunal of men who know something about the conduct of justice in criminal cases.”

At the first sitting of the House of Representatives after the publication of these remarks in the Press, Mr Fraser announced that in view of the serious nature of the comment he felt it his duty to lose no time in informing the House and the country that an inquiry would be held at the earliest possible opportunity. That, he added, was not to be construed as a reflection on the police officers concerned or on the Police Force generally, but as the matter had been raised in such a pointed form the sooner it was cleared up the better for all concerned. Order of Reference. The commission is to inquire into and report as to the following matters: 1. Do the circumstances of the prosecution disclose any impropriety in the conduct of the police officers concerned? If so, in what did it consist? 2. In particular, but without prejudice to the general nature of the inquiry.

(a) Were the police officers who took a statement from the young woman in question under a duty to warn her that she was not obliged to make any statement but that if she did make one it might be used in evidence upon her trial?

(b) If the answer to the foregoing is “Yes,” did the police officers discharge that duty? (c) If the answer to (b) is “No„” was the failure or omission to give such a warning likely to induce the young woman to make an untrue admission of guilt? (d) Was any promise express or implied given to the young woman by the police officers prior to or at the time of making the said statement? (e) If the answer to (d) is “Yes,,” what was the nature or effect of such promise? Was it likely to induce the young woman to make an untrue admission of guilt? (f) Was any threat, express implied or constructive, used by the police officers toward the young woman prior to or at the time of her making of the said statement? (g) If the answer to (f) is “Yes,” what was the nature or effect of such threat? Was it likely to induce the young woman to make an untrue admission of guilt? (h) Do the circumstances of the taking of the statement disclose that the conduct of the police officers concerned was oppressive or inconsiderate or. such as to impose an undue physical or mental strain upon the young woman.

(i) If the answer to (h) is “Yes,” was the conduct of the police officers such as to be likely to induce the young woman to make ah untrue admission of guilt? (j) Was it a breach of faith or otherwise unjust or unconscionable on the part of the police to prosecute the young woman?

3. Is there any matter not covered by the foregoing that calls for comment of any kind in connection with the conduct of the police in this case?