It was also provided by Section 6 of the Act of 1920 thay it should be person to give, on demand, to a Chief Oficer of Police, member sty his power lating to an offence or suspected offence, and, i son failed to give such information he should be guilty of a misdemeanour.
In my opinion, Lord Hewart ce tinued, it is true to say thay every police officer in England and Wales, whether he be a member of the Metropolitan Police Force or a member of the police force of a county, city or borough, holds the office of constable and, with his constabulary, has all the duties. and rights conferred by common law and by statute on the holders of that office.
He is required to ko an oath of office, and his primary duty is to preserve the King's peace. It follows that a police officer person who holds office under his Majesty within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act. may be as well to observe that the justices, in submitting this case to the opinion of this Court, after stating correctly that the issue whether a police officer is a person holding office under his Majesty, state that a police pfücer is in the service of his Majesty, being apparently under the impression that- a person in the service of his Majesty holds office under his Majesty. That is not the case. There are many im stances in which people hold office under his Majesty who are not, in any proper sense of the term, in the service of his Majesty. Likewise, there are many persons who are in the service of his Majesty but do not, in any proper sense of the term, hold office under his Majest:
In my opinion this case i foo plain for argument.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.