The Argus at KellyGang 13/1/1883 (3)
ROYAL COMMISSION - REPORT; DETECTIVES
EMPLOYING CRIMINALS
The employment of criminals seems to be the distinguishing characteristic of the system pursued by Victorian detectives in recovering stolen property and bringing offenders to justice. Without the questionable aid of those auxiliaries the detectives appear even in the most ordinary cases to be comparatively helpless. The principle of utilising criminals is admitted by all authorities on the subject to be a dangerous one. There is always a temptation to push the system to an extreme and to use criminal agents as decoys. The technical appellation for such persons is "fiz gig."
A "fiz gig" is paid to start the prey, which the expectant detective captures without trouble or inconvenience (vide p 315 q 7,691). He is supposed to receive not only a subsidy from the detective who employs him, but a share in the reward and a certain immunity from arrest for offences with which he may be chargeable. He may plan robberies and induce incipient criminals to co-operate but provided he lures the latter successfully into the detectives; hands, his whereabouts and antecedents are not supposed to be known to the police. Should he be found lacking in industry proving false to his employers or arousing suspicion as to the precise nature of his avocations, a prosecution is set on foot; but the case against the "fiz gig" usually breaks down or if he should be convicted a mitigation of his sentence is obtained on the ground of his usefulness to the department. Such a system is manifestly un-English and opposed to every principle of honour and fair play. It serves on the one hand to manufacture criminals and on the other it induces detectives to rely less upon their own intelligence, skill and experience than upon the secret information conveyed to them through a tainted source. No doubt, at times it may be necessary for the ends of justice that criminals should be paid to assist the authorities but extreme care should be taken to prevent an abuse of the system. Inspector Dowdell , Scotland Yard detective force, when under examination showed that the officers of the Criminal Investigation department in London are quite alive to the danger arising from the general and promiscuous use of criminals in tracing offenders. That there is no secret service fund in this colony and that detectives are compelled to pay criminals out of their own salaries are facts by no means reassuring. One detective declared that, although he was in the receipt of 15s a day he was worse off than an ordinary constable. Other defectives examined appeared to entertain a similar opinion the inevitable inference being that there were other sources from which their incomes were supplemented. That "fiz gigs" have been recognised agents, and that "put-up" cases have not been uncommon in connexion with the detective department is a conclusion that to the minds of your commissioners appears unavoidable.
CASE OF PATRICK BOARDMAN
A careful review of the evidence upon several points induces your commissioners to arrive at the following conclusions -1 That there was no necessity for the detectives informing the New Zealand police of the suspicions existing as regards Boardman, inasmuch as he had not up to that time been convicted of any criminal offence, and was by such action prevented from continuing in respectable employment. 2 That Britchner was a fiz gig, acting for the detectives and that he deliberately entrapped Boardman into the crime for which he was arrested. 3 That the detectives had full knowledge of the contemplated robbery. 4 That the detectives remained in the hotel by arrangement awaiting the signal of their agent. 5 That the house selected from winch to watch the bank premises, the number of detectives told off for the duty the mode of capture, the escape of the principal criminal, and other circumstances all contribute to support Boardman’s allega tion that the robbery had been concocted between Britchner, Hartney and Duncan. 6 That the prosecution of Boardman under the Vagrancy Act was designed to weaken if not to destroy the value of any evidence he might give against the detectives and in support of Foster's statements. Further your commissioners consider that Detective Duncan stands self convicted of prevarication and falsehood respecting his transactions with Boardman. Your commissioners believe contrary to Duncan 's assertion that he did send the letter containing the list of prisoners to Boardman and that he never received a letter sign "Browne" from Boardman. Detective Duncan is also chargeable with willfully endeavouring to mislead the commission with respect to his know ledge of the circumstances connected with the attempted robbery of the Commercial Bank and the arrest of Boardman..
The case of Jas Walshe and of Mr Chas Graham are dealt with by the commission in a hostile spirit to the force. As regards Walshe the report says -Your commissioners do not place much confidence in Walshe's evidence but it seemed as reliable in many particulars as that given by Detectives O'Callaghan and Nixon; and it served not only to throw light upon the internal disorganisation of the office but to support the statement made by another witness that the criminal Charles Taylor was a fiz gig in the employment of the detectives.
| ! | The text has been retyped from a microfiche copy of the original. We have taken care to reproduce this document but areas of the original text may been damaged. |
