The Argus at KellyGang 16/10/1882 (4)
ROYAL COMMISSION
AD INTERIM REPORT continued
7 Sergeant O'Sullivan prefers a very serious charge against his superior officer when he states that Superintendent Winch cleared him out of Melbourne for having interfered with the illegal traffic of certain publicans. It is tantamount to accusing the police officer in charge of the city with being subject to personal influences, if not of being corruptly in league with certain licensees who kept their premises open after hours for the accommodation of loose women. This witness states that he was not allowed to remain in Melbourne because he looked after the publicans , that when he reported Mr Mulcahy, of the North British Hotel, for having emptied foul water from his premises into the street channels, Superintendent Winch prevented a summons from issuing, that when the witness summoned Mr Opitz, of the Golden Fleece Hotel, for a similar offence against the bye-laws, at a time, too, when fever was prevalent in Melbourne, he was ordered to withdraw from the prosecution; that he was interfered with for checking prostitution in Bourke street, and that he was cleared out of Melbourne by Superintendent Winch.
The whole tenour of this witness's evidence is to the effect that Superintendent Winch prevented the police discharging their duty when certain publicans were concerned, and that those members of the force who initiated legal proceedings for violation of the law were liable to be transferred to other districts as a punishment. In reply to these allegations, Mr Winch submitted- "The statements regarding Mulcahy made by O'Sullivan may be perfectly true. When referred to me to direct, summonses are issued or warnings administered according to my own discretion, upon the reports sent in. This is and has been for years the common practice. With regard to Opitz, it will be seen by the court records that two summonses were issued against him for pumping offensive water from his premises. I have no other knowledge of the matter. As to O'Sullivan's transfer, he was sent to Fitzroy during the Exhibition, as there was not sleeping accommodation at the Russell street barracks. He was then attached to No 1 division of the city, and did duty at the Exhibition, which he did not consider as a punishment. So far as his removal to Richmond is concerned, I find by the official documents produced that on July 10 1881, the sergeant in charge at Richmond, O'Flaherty, applied for a sub officer to be sent out to him, the same being greatly needed, and O'Sullivan, as the best man, was selected for the purpose." The conclusion arrived at by the witness in the first instance might, in the absence of these explanations, be considered as a gratuitous and perhaps unfounded, but when confronted with the superintendent, and notwithstanding his written statement, he (O'Sullivan) reiterated the charge of having been cleared out of Melbourne as a punishment for performing his duty. It is obvious that gross individual injustice may be inflicted under cover of the requirements of the public service.
8 The suppression of the summonses issued by Constable Cash against a publican named Martin Stobie, for abusive language, is admitted, subject to the explanation that he (Mr Winch) did not consider Cash a reliable man, and accepted the statement of the circumstances that gave rise to the summons made by Stobie as more likely to be truthful than that given by the constable. The witness M'Cutcheon deposed in relation to this, that he saw Stobie entering Mr. Winch's office, and on leaving had a conversation with him on the subject of his interview, when Stobie stated that he had arranged about the summons, and had put a nail in the coffin of the constable, or words to that effect. Stobie having been called by Mr Winch, as a witness, denied having the conversation alluded to with M'Cutcheon, but it was not satisfactorily explained how M'Cutcheon could have become aware of the result of the interview if he had not been informed by Stobie, as the matter was purely official, and was only known to those in the office and to Stobie himself. Upon the whole, the evidence of Stobie substantially corroborated that of M'Cutcheon.
In connexion with their inquiry your commissioners have to complain of conduct on the part of Mr Winch which at best appears highly dangerous. When the respective ranks of the police force were called on to select delegates to represent them before the commission, the superintendent issued a memo in which, without authority and contrary to the instructions issued by the chief commissioner of police, he intimated that "should any sergeant or constable not wish to be represented before the commission, he can say as much in his report. The effect of this was that a large number of the sergeants in the metropolitan district for- warded reports to Superintendent Winch in which they expressed themselves as perfectly satisfied with the existing state of things, and that they declined to be represented. Yet, when several of those sub officers were appointed as delegates, and appeared to give evidence before the commission, they submitted many matters of importance relating to grievances under which members of the force at present laboured. Mr Winch, when asked for an explanation of his memo, stated that he had acted in accordance with what he thought was the intention of the commission as gathered from the secretary a letter on the subject, in which the words appeared 'the sergeants and constables are at liberty to nominate.' Such an answer can only be regarded as seeking to trille with the commission.
Again, Mr Winch seems to have invited interviews with witnesses who were summoned, or were likely to appear to give evidence before the commission. On the day Sergeant O'Shaughnessy, of Brunswick was directed to attend this sub officer waited by express request, upon Mr Winch at his private residence, and conversed with him in respect to the evidence he was likely to give. Further, when one of the delegates, Constable Delany, declared that Constable M'Liney was cleared out of Melbourne for having in technical parlance, "blocked Cleal's Hotel, that constable was required to attend at Superintendent Winch's office, with the result that a wholly different cause was assigned for his removal from Melbourne . It may be added that when this witness was called his equivocal and unsatisfactory answers induced the commission to cease examining him, believing that his evidence was wholly unreliable. In the one breath he denied having ever made the statement deposed to by Constable Delany, and yet he was prepared to show how his reports in respect to Sunday trading had been disregarded.
, .1. , .2. , .3. , .4. , .5. ,
| ! | 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. |
