COURT-MARTIAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 61, Issue 42, 29 November 1940, Page 2

COURT-MARTIAL

SIX GUNNERS CHARGED.

ALLEGED DISOBEDIENCE.

(Per Press Association)

CHRISTCHURCH, November 28.

Six gunners belonging to the 18tii Heavy Battery were brought before a District Court-Martial at the Battery point Barracks to-day, charged with disobeying lawful commands. Evidence of the consumption of considerable liquor in the barracks was given during the hearing. The court consisted of Major W. V. R. Fletcher (Ist Battalion, Nelson, Marlborough and West Coast Regt.), president; Capt. C. B. K. De Castro (No. 2 Training Battn., Burnham), Capt. T. W. Tosswill, Z Company, National Reserve, Lyttelton) and Lieut. R. AlcCrone, M.C. (17th Heavy Battery, N.Z. Artillery). Waiting members of the court were Capt. P. R. Wilberg (Ist Southland Regt) and Lieut. C. F. De Joux (No. 2 Training Battalion, Burnham). Lieut. G. L. Flack (18th Heavy Battery) was prosecutor, and 2nd-Lieut. J. B. Dealcer (Ist Otago Regt) was defending officer, Alajor G. T. Weston was Judge Advocate. Four officers for instruction were also sworn

The accused were Gunners John Francis Harvett, Cecil James Mclntosh, Edward Worth Newenham, Wallace Raynard Parker, Kama Tan and Robert Aron Watson, and they were charged with having, on November 20, disobeyed the lawful commands of their superior officer in that they refused to take over watch duty when ordered to do so by the officer of the watch. Lieutenant Flack (prosecutor) said that. on the evening of November 20 the sub-section to which the accused belonged were paraded, and marched to the gun stations. They refused to go on duty unless Bombadier Olilson was their Number 1. The men charged repeated their refusal and were placed under arrest.” This unit is not a training unit,” said the prosecutor, '“it is for the,defence of the country. If an attack comps from the sea, an\ everpresent danger, the battery would be in the front line. I submit that the offenders must be dealt with severely.” Officer’s Evidence. Lieutenant F. C. Roberts, of the 17th Heavy Battery, said he was watch officer on the night of November 20. He was informed that the men at the guns had refused watch duty and went down to the w r ar shelter. He ordered the men to go on duty, including the six accused. The men refused. Gunner Newenham and Gunner Watson said they would not go on duty unless Bombadier Ohlson was their No. 1 in charge of the sub-section. Alajor Lyon arrived at the Battery about 10 minutes later and addressed the men. The six accused still refused to go on watch. The defending officer: What was your actual order that the men disobeyed? This is important and I want you to answer. Was it an order or an inquiry ? Witness: There was no question of an inquiry. I said “YouTl go on duty.” They refused to go on duty. They refused to obey unless Bombardier Ohlson was No. 1.

Was it that they said they would go on watch ifiien their turn came? The prosecutor objected to the question, the objection being allowed. Continuing, witness said he aould not remember the exact order he gave. He told the men “you will go on duty or you will be put under arrest.” He did not know if the look-out was changed at 7.30. Later he heard Major Lyon say “I order you to go on duty.” Battery Sergeant-Major A .Le Petit gave evidence that he was present whe .1 Lieutenant Roberts ordered the accused to go on duty. They refused.

When the Commanding Officer, Major Lyon, talked to the men they still refused duty. The defending officer objected that the men were not charged with disr obeying Major Lyon but Lieutenant Roberts.

The Judge Advocate said the court could take note of the facts relevant to the case.

Continuing, Sergeant-Major Le Petit said he heard a bit of shouting iii the men’s quarters earlier in the evening When it got rather loud lie looked out and the noise stopped. After he > went down about the trouble at the guns he saw the accused. They were not intoxicated- There were no men cm duty on the guns. It was unusual for the whole watch to go on look-out duty. He took another sub-section from the barracks and placed them on duty.

That there was no case to answer was the submission of the defending officer. The whole thing had been hurried and the men put on trial before any offence had been committed. The men were charged with failing to-take over watch duty at 7.30 p.m. The only evidence on the point was that they did take over watch duty at 6 p.m. The evidence showed that in the war shelter the men were actually on duty) Here they had men oil duty being ordered to go on duty. The point was that they had answered that they would not take over their look-out duty, when their turn came, ’[hat opportunity to refuse when the time came was never given to them. “These lads are charged with a serious offence,” said the officer,” and we want the clearest possible evidence. If there is any doubt the accused should have the benefit of it.”

The prosecutor said he would emphasise what he had said before: The port of Lyttelton must be defended and they could not wait five minutes to see if a man was going on duty. There was nothing in the rules of procedure to sustain the point raised by the defence, announced the president. The court would reserve the point for further consideration. Considerable further evidence was heard.

Addressing the Court the defending officer said that there was unchallenged evidence that a certain amount of liquor had been consumed in the camp and the men were fairly bright. The first thing th at happened when lads of this age came under the influence was that they were inclined to throw their weight about and to become slightly cheeky. In the war shelter the men must be ready for instant action. To sleep would b© an offence. He again stressed that their refusal referred to a future act and until the time arrived they could not be considered to have refused, duty. The men carried on and the guns were manned even after they were under arrest. In his address the prosecutor said he would emphasise the sergeantmajor’s evidence that he personally posted look-outs at the guns as there were none there when he arrived.

In; reply to the Judge Advocate accused Watson said that seven men were originally under arrest and were locked in a cubicle about 10 by 10 by 8 for the remainder of the night. “These mere children were, in a military camp where liquor is supposed to be prohibited, able to consume quantities of liquor,” said the defending officer. “It is not a disgrace to the boys concerned, but to; the camp itself that they are faced with a quite - serious charge. To them it was more of a frolic. They are not the ones who are largely to blame. Thiese lads would have gone and done their job when the time came. It is not a case for confinement. I am instructed that they have already been confined! nightly in a disused concrete magazine which has been condemned by tha health authorities.”

The finding of the Court will be promulgated after it has been- before the Officer Commanding the District, Brigadier O. H. Mead.