NO ACTION

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIII, Issue 106, 7 May 1942, Page 8

NO ACTION

COURT'S COMMENT

CONTEMPT CASE ECHO

By Telegraph—Parliamentary Repoctw)

WELLINGTON, this day.

"In my view it would have ben vexatious to launch proceedings against anyone, whether it was Roberts or anyone else, on such material," said the Attorney-GeneraL Mr. Mason, in the House of Repre. sentatives last night m the course of his reply to a question asked by Mr Bodkin (National, Central Otago)' in association with Mr. Harker (National, Waipawa), as to whether the Government had directed the law officers of the Crown to take action against Roberts in accordance with the suggestion made by the Full Court in the recent prosecution of the Evening Post and the Standard for contempt of Court.

The Court's comment quoted by Mr. Bodkin was that: "As there wag apparently a prima facie case against Roberts appropriate action should be taken by the law officers of the Crown."

In reply, the Minister said he had considered that statement, and that he had taken and intended to take no action. The statement was not part of the Court's judgment, and the Minister noted that the Court had not stated categorically that there was a prima facie case against Roberts. It had stated only that "apparently" there was such a case. The Minister spoke of the three main ways of dealing with criminal contempt, two being summary and the third being trial by jury. The summary methods were not appropriate unless the case was the opposite of that, because essential facts were in serious dispute. Turning to the third possible method of proceeding. the Minister said that inquiries made by an experienced police officer had disclosed a definite conflict between the newspaper report and Roberts. "There being such a conflict," said the Minister, "ought proceedings to have been instituted against Roberts? I am of the opinio that they ought not. In my view it would have been vexatious to launch proceedings against anyone, whether it was Roberts or anyone else, on such material. In instituting criminal proceedings against a person, evidence tending to show that he may be guilty is not enough. The evidence must be of such a charactff that on it the accused person ought to be convicted. In proceedings of the present nature this is especially true for a protracted and doubtful struggle on such an issue could not really have enhanced the authority of the Court."

"The uncrowned king can do no wrong," said Mr. Doidge (National. Tauranga). w