The Argus at KellyGang 13/10/1882
THE POLICE COMMISSION
SUPERINTENDENT WINCH AND SUB INSPECTOR LARNER
We understand that yesterday the Police Commission sent in an interim report, stating that in the course of their investigations into the organisation of the police force, many grave imputations, orally and in writing, had been levelled against the force. It was alleged that a wholesale system of black-mailing prevailed in Melbourne , the constables were discouraged in carrying out the laws for the suppression of Sunday trading and the social evil by being transferred to other districts, that police officers were subsidised by persons carrying on infamous traffic of various kinds, that subordinate officers had purchased promotion, and that superior officers were indebted to subordinates for monetary assistance, and that Messrs Winch and Larner's names were discovered in the books of one Rowe, a publican. As to the latter case, the board of inquiry that had been appointed had examined Mr Winch, and the commission felt that they must abide by the finding of the board. Nevertheless, they deemed it their duty to prosecute the inquiry further, to ascertain whether there existed any justification for other charges made against Messrs Winch and Larner.
The report goes into the departmental history of Mr Winch, and gives a summary of eight charges that might be said to have been formulated against him. These charges are as follow: -
(1) Borrowing money from Mr Edwards, licence of the White Hart Hotel;
(2) incurring obligations to that hotel keeper by taking away, without immediate payment, bottles of spirits;
(3) inducing the some person to advance £32 on a post dated cheque;
(4) asking Mr Andrew M'Catchcon, licensee of the Horse and Jockey Hotel, for a loan of £60;
(5)) obtaining monetary assistance from Sergeant Bell, and favouring that sub officer in consequences;
(6) being found in a notorious house under suspicious circumstances;
(7) transferring Sergeant O'Sullivan to a suburban station for his efforts to suppress illegal trading by publicans, &.c;
(8) suppressing a summons issued by Constable Cash against a hotelkeeper named Martin Stobie.
The report deals with the evidence on those charges, and as to the first three, states that Mr Winch admitted them, but urged that he and Mr Edwards were old friends. This is not accepted by the commission as an excuse, in the face of the 165th clause of the Police Force Regulations. As to the fourth charge, it is pointed out that Mr. Winch denied Mr M'Cutcheon's statement, and the charge resolved itself into a question of the comparative veracity of the two witnesses. But the commissioners consider Mr. M'Cutcheon's evidence to have been unshaken. At the same time, they give no very definite finding on the charge. On charge No 5, they go into the evidence, but give no direct finding. Charge No 6, to the effect that Mr Winch was found in a notorious house under suspicious circumstances, is stated to have been borne out by the evidence. Charge No, 7 is declared to be a very serious one, but the commissioners give no very distinct finding, although they state that the evidence supports it. As to the 8th charge, they hold that the evidence shows that the summons was suppressed, but they leave the matter undecided.
In the next portion of the report the commissioners complain of Mr Winch's conduct towards the commission, and of his having intimated to his subordinates in the force that if they did not wish to be represented before the commission they could say as much in their reports. This is characterised as trifling with the commission. It is like-wise stated that Mr Winch had interviews at his private residence with witnesses who were to be examined by the commission, and the commissioners complain that a system of terrorism seems to have been established to deter members of the force from giving evidence before them. Tor instance, since Sergeant O'Sullivan gave evidence, a number of charges had been levelled against him that were previously un- heard of, relating to circumstances that occurred 12 months ago. Referring to evidence given by Sergeant Dalton, and Senior constable Bourke, they say that they do not undertake to pronounce whether Mr Winch or the City Bench was most blameable for the disgraceful state of affairs therein disclosed; and they quote at length evidence given by Ex-superintendent Hare, to the effect that, unless a superintendent was perfectly un- trammelled in his financial relations, he could not efficiently discharge his duty in his district. They declare that the evidence seems to lead to the conclusion that Superintendent Winch was not in a financial position to properly conduct his district.
The commissioners then deal with Sub inspector Larner's case, and set out charges formulated against him to the effect that on four occasions he borrowed £1 from an hotel keeper and that such debts were erased from the lender's books as bad, but had been repaid since the beginning of the inquiry by the commission; that another hotelkeeper. Mr Sheehy, of the Victoria Hotel, lent him £9 in 1880 and £3 in 1881, and had received an IOU for £15, £3 being interest; that Mr Hinde, another publican, lent Mr Larner £5, and that a constable subsequently asked Mr Hinde to cash a cheque of Mr Larner's; and that Mr Larner had had other private monetary transactions with publicans, the cases being specified. The report states that when Mr Larner was called on to answer these charges he admitted them, urging in extenuation that he had been subjected to great expense in consequence of his promotion, and that he had never allowed his transactions with publicans to influence him in the discharge of his official duties.
In conclusion, the commission state that having carefully considered the evidence they are of opinion that it is not desirable, in the interests of the public service, that Superintendent Winch and Sub inspector Larner should be permitted to return to duty, and they recommend that those officers be called on to retire from the force without prejudice to any claims for a superannuation allowance or compensation to which, by reason of their service, they may have become entitled.
| ! | 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. |
