UNCORROBORATED POLICE EVIDENCE
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—.X conviction was quashed last week at the London Sessions in the case of a man who had been arrested under the Vagrancy Act of 1898 for " persistently soliciting or impor- tuning." The Justices arrived at their conclusion through being impressed with the public danger which arises from the absence of any attempt on the part of the police to obtain independent evidence of the alleged misconduct in such eases, This decision is of great importance in view of the judgment Horton v. Mead in 1913, in which it was decided that " it is not necessary that evidence be given that some person was annoyed or had made complaint." This means in praerk, that the police are the sole judges of what should be regarded as improper behaviour in public places. The recent decision does not reverse the previous judgment, but it does warn magistrates of the danger of convicting persons under this AM on the bare evidence of two policemen admittedly working in conjunction with each other, especially when it is remembered that the defendant charged with the offence has been deprived of the right to be tried by a jury.
As a prison visitor wino has paid a great deal of attention to these cases during the past two years, I would like to emphasize the menace to justice that exists under the present adirninistration of this Act. It is very seldom possible for the defendant to call witnesses on his behalf, so that in the police court it is usually the word of one man against the evidence of two policemen. Thus, all things considered, it would be as will if magistrates, when confronted with such charges, should lac it down as a rule that, despite the judgment Horton z. Mead, it is in the interests of justice that a complaint on thf part of a person annoyed should precede any arrest and that the person should appear in court to support the charge.
To this most reasonable demand it is often replied that, undo these conditions, there would be very few arrests. One can but answer, both from the standpoint of the liberty of the subject and the reformative schemes of modern imprisonment, such a result would be eminently desirable.
The whole attitude of the Law on this matter savours of the Middle Ages, being wholly out of harmony with modern thought and knowledge—a fact that is the glory of the blackmailer, and his trump card.--I am, Sir, &c.,
Brondesbury, N. W. 2.
Previous page
