THE POLICE FORCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2650, 4 November 1909, Page 5

THE POLICE FORCE.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

SOME STARTLING STATEMENTS. SEVERE COMMENTS BY MR. BISHOP. [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, Nov. 3. The following is a summary of the findings in the report of the Royal Commission on the police force, laid on the table of the House to-day; IMPORTANT RECOMMENDATIONS. The Commissioner (Mr. H. W. Bishop. S.M.), considers that closer supervision of the training depot at night is required. Fuller inquiry should be made into the antecedents of men joining the force. The probationary period should be extended to three months, and married probationers should be paid 7s 6d a day. No recruit should be finally enrolled until, lie has completed three months’ probation. Service on street pay should commence at 8s a day, and increase by an increment of 6d a day every three years, until 9s 6d is reached. Senior constables should receive 10s per day. There should be some degree of elasticity in regard to educational qualifications. Positions should not be “offered” to men. Transfers are frequent. Weekly classes should be held for all men under two years’ service.

CONDUCT OF THS MEN GENERALLY GOOD.

The conduct generally of the men has been good. The Commissioner (Mr. H. W. Bishop) is. convinced that a good deal of drinking goes on amongst the younger men. Cases of drunkenness have boon dealt with far too leniently. As to morality, there is little to cavil at. Mr. Bishop considers that a certain amount of political influence has been used in regard to the enrolment of members. The idea of sectarian or Masonic influence is scouted by Mr. Bishop. DISCONTENT ABOUT PROMOTIONS.

There is discontent in the force in regard to promotions. No constable should be promoted to the rank of sergeant after he has passed the age of 85. Station sergeants should be done awav with and replaced by senior sergeants. The chief detective and subinspector at headquarters should be replaced by civil servants, and the members of the staff sent to do duty outside.

Annual leave should be extended to 15 days. Recruits should be instructed in rifle .shooting. Dir. Bishop is not in favor of setting up an appeal hoard. Travelling allowance should be increased to 8s per day. Departmental inquiries should be conducted on oath. Dir. Bishop remarks that many of the regulations are obsolete, useless, and inefficient. . The report states that Dir. Dinnie recognised for several years the urgent need for their revision, but nothing had been done in the matter. Recent instances of grave misconduct on the part of certain members of the force had created a feeling of unrest and want of confidence in the force, all loading to Dir. Arnold’s charges. VERY UNDESIRABLE APPOINTDIENTS.

Respecting the appointment of undesirable persons as constables, Mr. Bishop makes some severe comments. Referring to the case of an Australian criminal, mentioned by Mr. Arnold, the former says that he can see no reason for takng the man. In another case Mr. Bishop says he doubts very much if the man ever would have been accepted had it not been for the backing received from a -member of Parliament.

Of another case, that of an ex-Per-manent Artilleryman, he fails to understand why a man, insubordinate in one force, should be supposed fit for another force shortly afterwards, whatever his credentials from friends might be. Of still another case which he describes as ‘ 'ono of the worst I have cofne across in connection with laxity in admitting men to the force,” Mr. Bishop says, “The profound impression it left on my mind is that had it not been for the pressure brought to bear by another member of Parliament, the man would never have been accepted. The inquiries made about him wer© never satisfactory, and were never properly completed, and almost every statement the man made about himself was a lie, and he even went the length of producing documents on behalf of himself that belonged to another man 'of the same name. He was finally allowed, to resign.” . “There have been,” continues Mr: Bishop, “so many instances lately_of men after admission proving themseives to be perfect blackguards and quite unlit for constables, that it cannot be wondered at that one should bo rather sceptical as to the real value of the preliminary inquiries made, even although they might appear prima- facie to be quite complete. It is mot very satisfying, after the event, to he assured by the Commissioner of Police that every undesirable, so soon as discovered, has promptly received his conge.” Going fully into the case of -it constable who was charged with robbing a drunken man and, after various transfers, was allowed to resign, while a constable who complained about linn was transferred, ana on complaining was severely reprimanded and fined £l, Mr Bishop characterises this as one of the most glaring instances I have come across of inept administration. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE. Dealing at length with the Commissioner of Police. Mr. Bishop says, ‘As he evidently wished it to be iinphed that he was responsible for the setting up of this Commission, it is, perhaps, a little inconsistent that he should, on certain occasions, have shown a_ disposition to impede rather- than assist the work of inquiry.” Mr. Bisliop adds “That he has a long .and: honorable police record no one can possibly doubt. Whether long actual police experience necessarily qualifies a man for successful administration of a force such as ours is a matter of opinion. A man must be judged by the result or Jus work. Where I have found it necessary to differ considerably from the Commissioner’s views on certain matters, and to critic,se adversely, certain phases of his administration, I nave done so wth regret, for I fully recognise that, in everything he has clone, he has acted honestly, with the best intentions, and with a due regard to what he believed, however mistakenly, to he in the best interests of the fore6.^ “The Commissioner,” says Mr Bishop in another place, “makes the astounding statement that there is no general dissatisfaction in the force. Mhy, the

evidence is full of instances in which, men have come forward and expressed the gravest dissatisfaction, and it would certainly be unfair to term these men what the Commissioner thinks proper to call them —agitators.” Again, Mr. Bishop says: “The Commissioner takes credit to himself for considerably' improving the efficiency of the force after he took over change from Ex-Commissioner _ Tunbridge. Whether the credit can be justly claimed must be judged by the evidence. There is no doubt, I take it, that the force was highly efficient when Dir. Tunbridge left it. It is unfortunate that a' Commission of Inquiry should have to sit upon it to-day.” DIR, BISHOP’S CONCLUSIONS.

In the course of his concluding remarks, Mr. Bishop says that the portion of certain officers, if left as they are, will be perfectly impossible and grave trouble may arise. “What,” he asks, “is going to be the, position of certain men who have given evidence against their superiors? I. can do no more,” he says, “than leave the position here in the hands of those in authority, with an earnest injunction to grapple honestly and sincerely with any difficulties that have arisen, so that no feeling of soreness may continue, or that risk of doing injustice may arise, but that all may Tvor-v together for the benefit of a force that, as a whole, is a credit to the Dominion, and that, properly handled, will stiil further enhance its reputation.”

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE

On the report of the Police Commission being laid on the table of the House, Dir. Arnold explained that the course taken by him was not antagonistic to Mr. Dinnie, and he regretted that that officer had made a personal matter of it. The charges made, by him (Dlr. Arnold) were serious, but not reckless, and if half of them were proved lie was justified in making them. Mr. Dinnie’s statement that all the charges made were absolutely baseless was absurd, but, worse still, was Dir. Dinnie’s statement that he had laid a trap for public men who were inquiring into the state of the force. He (Dir. Arnold) was satisfied, whatever the report might be, that new' heads were required for the police force. The whole head office ought to be re-organised. Dlr. T. E. Taylor reviewed the Commissioner’s (Dir. Bishop's) finding in several charges. Since the D.I.C. scandal at Dunedin, he (Dir. Taylor) had doubts as to the capacity of Commissoner Dinnie. Dlr. Taylor gave instances of laxity of discipline existing in the force and improper methods of promotion. One of the most mportant matters in the report was the state of the headquarters staff, which, was seriously affecting the morale of the entire force. Dir. Bishop’s recommendations in regard to Dlr. Dinnie himself meant that the Commissioner was grossly incompetent and he (Dlr. Taylor) failed to soe how the Executive could retain his cervices.

Dlr. Herdman, referring to the state of the force under Commissioner Tunbridge, said that that officer had had to resign* rather than submit to the dictation of Dlinisters of the Crown. In the present case the Dlinister was responsible, and could not make a scapegoat of the Commissioner. Dlr. Wilford said that the police force of the Dominion was as good as any in the world. He did not believe one charge of bribery and corruption brought before .the Commission. Dir. Bishop had not taken up a proper attitude in declining to recognise Mr. Dinnie’s status. Dlinisters said they would not discuss the report-, as the House had not yet had an opportunity to read the report. It was an extraordinary thing that while this was so the report was published by the press and was available to the public. This was a very unfair position to place the House in.

Sir Joseph Ward, in reply, said that he had hoped that members would hav e waited till they had copies of the report in their hands before discussing it. The Government’s proposals in regard to the report would be placed before the House, when an opportunity would be given to discuss the whole matter. Referring to Mr. Herdman’s remarks lie said these were contrary to fact, and showed bias. Mr. Herdman had blamed Ministers for interfering with the force, and then blamed them for not interfering. Sir Joseph Ward read from the report, showing that charges of political influence were unfounded. He denied that Ministers of the Crown had interfered unduly with Commissioner Tunbridge. The Minister in charge of the Department at the time may have reversed the Commissioner’s decision. He was entitled to do that, and had to accept his responsibility. It was absurd to suggest that if a Minister responsible to Prliament- and the people reversed a decision of his subordinates, he interfered improperly with them. The Government had. not yet arived at a conclusion' in regard to the recommendations embodied in the report. Mr. Arnold was right in calling for the inquiry, and the Government had done its duty in appointing the Commission and having the •whole' matter cleared up. COMMISSIONER DINNIE TO PREPARE A REPLY. WELLINGTON, Nov. 3. Mr. W. Dinnie, Commissioner of Police, intends to prepare a statement covering the allegations contained in Mr. H. W. Bishop’s report to Parliament concerning the police force. Mr. Dinnie will ask the Minister of Justice to lay_liis statement on the table of the House.