ULTRA VIRES?

Auckland Star, Issue 154, 2 July 1934, Page 8

ULTRA VIRES?

PROCESSION BAN. MAGISTRATE'S DECISION. ALL CHARGES DISMISSED. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) PALMERSTON NORTH, this day. Reserved decision was given by Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., this morning, in two cases heard before him arising out of the recent unemployed demonstration in Palmerston North. In the case of Rodney Lee, charged under section 34 of the Police Offences Act with inciting to lawlessness, the magistrate said inciting to lawlessness in his opinion means something more than criticism of a law, or even suggested passive resistance to a law. In the police evidence setting out the utterances of the accused he could find no incitement to a breach of the law >y violent means. The main statements complained of were those advising the j unemployed to demonstrate, despite the police ban. As there was no law authorising such a ban that statemen was not within the section. Tho at.vice not to "-o to unemployment camps was the same category. To refuse to go to camp was not a breach of any law. The third statement, advising the unemployed to organise their might to overthrow the present Government, did not necessarily mean to overthrow b> violent means. It might mean to organise tho voting strength of the unemployed. "It seems to me," added tho magistrate, "that these utterances are no more open to censure than those of reputable public organisations an hi!,her-placed citizens, not only in Palmerston North, but in other ccntie.s, who have criticised the Unemployment Board's policy. In my opinion the charges must be dismissed. Ban on Processions "Unreasonable.^ Tho second case was that of Eric Anderson, who was charged that on Juno 9 he did wilfully obstruct Rawle and constables in the execution of their duty. „ "Tho obstruction complained of, says tho magistrate in his judgment, is that of taking part in an unemployed piocession and refusing to desist when the inspector forbade the procession to continue, the inspector actm 1,1 P" suanco of a resolution passed by the Palmerston North City Council. After quoting the latter, made under section 175 (4) (1) of tho Municipal Corporations Act, the magistrate said it was a prohibition for all time of anything in tho nature of a procession. It would include weddings, funerals, girl guides and bov scouts marching in formation. Salvation Army bands and followers, of children of an orphanage or some other institution walking in pairs to church, or even a few friends walking in twos down a street, or several Chinese walking in single file. It was, therefore, an unreasonable interference with the lights of the public. "In addition, in my opinion," states tho magistrate, "tho language used to define tiio traffic it purports to stop is too vasrue and indefinite. Where pub he rights are sought to be restricted the lan<nia"e should be definite. In my opinion section 175 (4) (I) gives no power to a council to pass such resolution. The section gives power temporarily to stop traffic on any street, if any conditions mentioned in section 4 prevail. I think the resolution should state the ground upon which the council relies as authorising them under the section to do what is really to close the street.

'Some Limit of Time' Needed. "If the ground relied on is that public disorder exists or is anticipated it must be carcful to place some limit of time upon the action. What tlicy purported to- do in this case is to stop part of the traffic for all time, and even if they had power to discriminate on or differentiate, wliich in my opinion is not given by the section, tlicy certainly have no power to exercise discrimination indefinitely. "In my opinion the resolution of tlio City Council is ultra vires, and that being the case the police have no power to ban or stop an unemployment procession. Defendant was not wilfully obstructing the police in the execution of their duty, and the charge must be dismissed." " Cherished Right." Tlio magistrate added: "The law in New Zealand is the same as that in Britain, where persons arc entitled to demonstrate, etc.. so long as meetings are orderly and peaceful. This is the cherished right of the British nation, and should not be lightly interfered with or curtailed." Inspector Rawle mentioned the possibility of an appeal. In several other cases, which were adjourned sine die, the restriction placed when granting bail, that defendants take no part in demonstrations, was removed.