Thursday Flashback

Scarborough Mere pictured in its heyday with the popular Mere cafe in the background. Quite a few people can be seen watching some activity out on the water. What had once been a 40-acre lake and swamp by the mid-1920s the Mere and its man-made islands were transformed into a beautiful

Did Shepherd immediately say he had a rear light? The reply was in the affirmative.

Mr Whitfield, cross-examined the witness further asking Shepherd on that particular night he was on police duty or private business.

Inspector Thompson said he simply asked Shepherd the question to know whether he was on police duty or private business. Shepherd’s reply was that he was off duty and that he was on private business.

Mr Whitfield: He protested against you being officious and wanting to know what his private business was? - I didn’t ask him what his private business was.

Were you vexed? - No. You had no reason to be vexed? - No. It was just a police interview? - So far as I was concerned, yes.

And so far as he was concerned? - No, he was excited. He said: “If you want to know my business go and find out. I will neither tell you nor the Chief Constable. Mr Whitfield: Yes, he was protecting against your referring to his private affairs. Had you a right to ask him his private business? - No: I didn’t ask him.

Inspector Thompson said it public amenity. Photo reproduced courtesy of the Max Payne collection. Reprints can be ordered with proceeds going to local charities. Telephone 0330 1230203 and quote reference number YRN-160719115545050. was a matter of discipline.

Mr Whitfield: I can put the matter in a nutshell.

You were not sure it was Shepherd, you were not sure he had a rear light, and you only decided to report him when you had this difference, brought on by your own officious questions.

Inspector Thompson: No, I was not officious.

Cyril Ansell said he saw PC Shepherd riding his bicycle in Holbeck Hill. He did not see a red rear light. Mr Whitfield, for the defence, described the case as extraordinary inasmuch as it was brought by one police officer against another who had been in the force with him for some 15 or 16 years. He (Mr Whitfield) quite understood that a police officer who made such a report as this might pride himself, saying, “I act without fear or favour. This man is a man well-known to me, but I will do my duty and make a report against him.” That was quite right so far, and that was a high standard to take. There were, however, other points of view which he suggested a reasonable and upright officer would take. Thompson must have known Shepherd’s word was to be believed and have graciously said he had made a mistake.

He did not suggest Thompson came there to say there was no rear light when there was, but what he suggested was that Thompson had a serious doubt or he would have dealt more promptly in the matter.

Yet all this stink had been caused in the Police Force for a thing of this kind. He (Mr Whitfield) contended that Thompson had acted in an indiscreet manner in thinking that, as Shepherd’s superior officer, he had a right to pry and poke into his affairs.

The magistrates retired, and on returning into court after a very brief absence, the Mayor announced the case would be dismissed. They were, he added, of opinion the evidence showed there was a light, it may have been a very dim one, on the police constable’s rear lamp. They also thought that at the time Shepherd passed Inspector Thompson and the direction in which he was riding it would have been difficult for the inspector to see the lamp, and consequently he might have been mistaken as to whether there was or was not a light. They, however, considered Inspector Thompson was perfectly within his rights in calling attention to the fact.

On the application of Mr Whitfield the magistrates agreed to costs, amounting to £2 5s.