THE KNYVETT CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 32, 7 February 1910, Page 5

THE KNYVETT CASE.

RECONSIDERED BY CABINET. PREVIOUS DECISION ADHERED TO. The following telegram in connection ■with the Knyvett case -was received on Saturday afternoon by Mr. J. S. Dickson, chairman of the Knyvett Defence Committee.— "Aβ promised to the deputation which waited upon mc on the 20th ult., I submitted the various points raised to the Adjutant-General; together with the whole of the papers and the certified copy of the evidence supplied by the deputation by memorandum, as follows: — "Memorandum for the Adjutant-Gen-eral: I send you herewith the file of the Knyvett papers in order that you may ascertain from the President of the Court whether the statement made by the deputation that waited upon mc yesterday is correct, viz., that the evidence upon which you made your recommendation to the Government is incomplete. I also send you a copy of the evidence, which the deputation declared had been taken by a Court shorthand writer, and certified to by him to them as correct, in which evidence they pointed out that the President of the Court is alleged to have stopped Captain Knyvett from calling further witnesses, upon the ground that the Court was satisfied that it was unnecessary, and from this Captain Knyvett is alleged to have concluded that the charges against him were not proved, and it was unnecessary for him to proceed further. On receipt of the President's reply, I shall be glad if you will fully consider the matter, and report to mc ac soon as possible.

"J. G. WARD, "Minister for Defence."

The Adjutant-General forwarded to the President of the Court of Inquiry on the 25th January as follows: —

"The President, Court of Inquiry: I beg to forward herewith a memorandum, received from the Eight Hon. the Minister of Defence re inquiry in connection with the Court recently held ia Auckland, information on the following points, viz.: (1) Whether the evidence recorded by the Court, and on which I made my recommendation to the Government, wae complete? (2) Whether you, as President of the Conrt, stopped Captain Knyvett from calling further evidence, on "the ground that it was considered unnecessary, and from which Captain Knvvett is alleged to have concluded that the chaTges against him were not proven and it was unnecessary for him to proceed further. The file in connection with the case is forwarded, together with a copy of the evidence taken dawn by a shorthand writer.

"H. D. TUSON, Colonel, "Adjutant-General."

On receipt of the Court's report the Adjutant General on the 29th January forwarded the report to mc, and suggested that it should be submitted to the Solici-tor-General for his opinion on the following points:

1. Whether Colonel Robin was a material witness, and, if so, whether the Court was justified in refusing to allow his evidence on the grounds of irrelevancy.

2. Whether the Court was justified, from a legal point of view, in refusing to admit evidence in support of the allegations against the chief of the General Staff, as thereby the accused was unable to prove "provocation by a superior" (vide par. 23, page 6, Manual of Military Law, and par. 5, page 16.

On the Ist February, the Solicitor-Gen- * eral advised as follows: "In particlar, I - think that the Court was justified in T refusing to hear the evidence of Colonel c Robin and of the other witnesses whose evidence was rejected. It is evident from the report of the inquiry that Captain Knyvett's intention in examining Colonel Robin and those other witnesses was to prove the truth of the accusations made by him against that officer. This issue was, however, as the Court rightly pointed out, irrelevant to the inquiry. The question before the Court was not whether those accusations were true or false, but whether in making them, in the manner in which they were made (and irrespective of their truth or falsehood), Capain Knyvett was guilty of an offence against military discipline which justified his dismissal. I am of opinion that the evidence is sufficient to justify as a mattor of law the conclusion that Captain Knyvett was guilty of "insubordination" within the meaning of section 54 of the Defence Act, 1908. That term is wide enough to include any conduct on the part of an inferior which is inconsistent with his proper relation of subordination to his superior officers, and includes therefore such an attack on the character and competence of Colonel Robin as was made in this case. Independently of section 54 of the Act it would seem that Captain Knyvett had aleo committed a breach of the regulations as to the discipline of the Defence forces. (See regulations 174 to ISO.) These regulations prescribe the method in which, aggrieved members of the Defence forces are to bring their complaints to the notice of the authorities and the prescribed method was not followed by Captain Knyrett. It is true that the charge formulated for the report of Inquiry does not specifically refer to section 54 of -the Act or to the regulations, but I think that the defendant had sufficient notice of the nature of the offence with which he was charged, and a sufficient' opportunity of answering that charge. "JOHN W.SALMOND, "Solicitor-GeneraL" "The opinion of the Attorney-General was also taken upon the points raised, and he confirmed that of the SolicitorGeneral. The papers then came before Cabinet, and Cabinet, after giving the subject the fullest possible consideration, decided that they had no recommendation to make to His Excellency." J. G. WARD. REPORT OF THE COURT OF INQUIRY. On the 28th January, the Conrt reporttd to the Adjutant-General in the fo* lowing terms: 1. Proceedings of Court of Inquiry, reassembled at headquarters, Wellington, at p-m., on Thursday, 27* h January, 1910, to report on certain points in connection with the Court of Inquiry, which sat at Auckland on the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd December, 1909, to investigate certain charges against Captain Frank Berners Knyvett. 2. The order convening the re-aesembling of fhe Court was read. 3. The letter from the Adjutant-General, dated 25th January, 1910, was read. 4. The typewritten report of proceedings of the Court held at Auckland, handed in by the deputation was read. 5. The Court had to report as follows on the

questions contained *n the AdjntantGeneral's letter above referred to, viz.:

6. Question, "Whether the evidence recorded by. the Court and on which 1 made my recomendation to the Government was complete" 7. No evidence on oath was taken on the first' day. 8. The procedings on the first day (the record of which were handed in by the deputation, occupied 23 pages of the type-written statement), dealt almost entirely with points raised by the accused as to privilege, objections to the charges against him, and with his right' to be assisted by counsel or a friend. 0. The Court deliberated from time to time on the various objections raised by the accused, and recorded them as well as it 3 ruling on the proceedings previously submitted. 10. The questions and the answers given on oath by accused and his witnesses were recorded in the proceedings. 11. The evidence of each witness was subsequently read over to him, and each witness agreed that the record of his evidence was correct. 12. The Court had no facilities for making a verbatim record of the whole proceedings, but nothing essential was omitted. 13. Question 2: "Whether you, as President of the Court, stopped Captain Knyvett from calling further evidence, on the ground that it was considered unnecessary, and from which Captain Knyvefct is alleged to have concluded that the charges against him were not proven, and it was unnecessary for him tc proceed further."

The President did not stop the accused I from calling further evidence. The Court (as already stated in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of their report, attached to the proceedings) explained to the accused that any evidence produced by him must be relevant to the charges against himself; also, that the Court was not concerned with the truth or untruth of the allegations against the Chief of the General Staff, and that consequently no evidence in support of them would be admitted. The accused stated on oath that he honestly believed the newspaper articles commenting on his company's visit to Wellington, correctly reporting the views expressed by Colonel Robin regarding it, and said that these articles completely spoiled his undertaking, and; that they belittled him before his men and the public. The accused swore that he was not actuated b;« malice in writing the letter which is the subject of this inquiry. He also brought witnesses in support of his statement that he had been approached by other officers who considered they had suffered from unwarranted interference on the part of the Chief of General Staff. After this evidence, as recorded in the proceedings, was given, the Court informed the accused that it was unnecessary to produce, further evidence of a similar nature.

The Court did not make any statement which could have justified the accused in concluding that the charges against him were not proven. (Signed) E W. CHAYTOR, President of Court; J. SANDTMANN, ActingMajor; J. T. BOSWORTH, Captain.

[The above appeared in part of our Saturday's edition.]

MR. C. J. PARR'S OPINION.

WHAT THE PUBLIC WILL ASK.

UNIVERSAL SCHEME JEOPARDISED.

When Mr. C. J. Parr, ivuo wa3 chairman at the indignation meeting in Auckland in connection with Captain Knyvett'e dismissal, was approached for hi 3 opinion thi3 morning on the latest pronouncement, he remarked without hesitation: "I think that Sir Joseph Ward is ill-advised in the action he has taken. There can 'be no doubt , that the punishment was too severe. No fair-minded man, reading the evidence and knowing the facts, could possibly think otherwise. The excellent and unique record of Knyvett as a volunteer officer should have counted for something." "I am afraid," said Mr. Parr, "that the almost bruttil severity meted out to this man, whose only fault was that he pu* into cold print what other volunteer officers in the district think and say, will tend to drive efficient and zealous men out of the eervice.

"And there is another and more important aspect—the Government has told us quite plainly what it has meant in regard to Knyvett. What the public want to know—and I think will insist upon knowing before long—is what doee the Government intend to do with Colonel Robin? It is impossible by any sophistry to ignore the plain and direct charges that have been made in respect to Colonel Robin's administration; is the demand for an inquiry into these charges to be absolutely refused? Is the new universal training scheme to be submitted to his hands? For years I have been one of the strongest advocates of universal military training. At present we are in a fool's paradise, a tempting prey for Germany or Japan. But if Sir Joseph Ward wishes to t wreck the prospects of universal military training in the Auckland province, at all events, he has only to follow out the policy he has adopted in dismissing from the service such capable officers as Captain Knyvett.

STATEMENT BY MB. DICKSON. Mr. J. S. Diekson, chairman of the Knyvett defence committee, interviewed this morning, said: "The decision of the Cabinet comes as an overwhelming surprise. In the first place, Sir Joseph Ward wired mc that the papers had been forwarded to the Governor, and now it is stated that the papers went before the Cabinet, which decided that it had no recommendation to make to his Excellency. These two wires are entirely contradictory. Then as regards the statement now made by the Court that they had not made any remarks which Captain Knyvett could have concluded that the charges made against him were not proved, I have only to quote from the proceedings of the Court. Charge 4 was dropped by the Court altogether. Charge I—The1 —The President: "I daresay that you were feeling very hurt at the time, and if the articles were a little on the wide side then you may be excused. You have only to show reasonable grounds that you believed they were connected with the failure of four trip. You have shown that you considered you were injured by this action (i.e., Colonel Eobin giving information to the "Dominion" newspaper) and that you acted with a bona fide desire to obtain redress. They were not malicious statements. Captain Knyvett: The Court says then I have given sufficient evidence to show that my statements were not made with any malicious spirit? The President: Yes. Charge 2.—You may call further evidence on the second charge, but the Court does not consider it necessary. Charge 3.—That is quite sufficient to establish the truth of your statement that you have been approached. Captain Knyvett: TheTe is then no necessity to call farther evidence T The President: It is quite sufficient to establish the truth of your statement.