SEDITION.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15861, 28 March 1917, Page 10

SEDITION.

APPEALS AGAINST eO>"YICTIO>~. TOWERS OF PARLIAMENT CHALLENGED. (rr.E3S ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, Morcli 27. Important issues were raised in the Full Supremo Court to-day, in the cases in which tho power el Parliament to pass the Military Service Act was challenged, and a contention was put forward that certain war regulations: wore ultra vires. Thc'cai-cs arose over the convictions, on charges ot making -.i„e of seditious utterances., recorded against Robert Scmple, of Brooklyn, Wellington (three charges'): Thomas Brindle, waterside worker, Wellington : Pever Eraser. waterside worker. Wellington;, Frederick Riley Cooke,-Christshureh-; and James Thorn, Christchureh. Each of these is at present serving * a term of twelve months' impriesonmeiV: with hart! labour. The Magistrates who entered the various convictions were: Messrs M . G. Riddell ('Wellington') and 11. W. Bishop (Christchureh). It is against their decisions that the appeals are now made. The Bench was occupied by the Chief Justice (Sir-Robert- Siouti. Mr Justicc l>eimiston,. Mr Justice Cooper, and Mr •Justice Chapman. Mr G. Hutchison appeared for the 'appellants, and the Solicitor-General (Dr. Salmond, Iv.C.) lor tho. informants. John O'Doziovau, Commissioner of Police, and John Dwyer, Superintendent of Police, rcsncctivelv. 'The following is o summary of the points of law raised by Mr Hutchison: l.'That the War Regulations Act, If) 1-1, in pursuance of which the regulations were made under several subdivisions. of which tho appellants were convicted, was not within the competency of ihe General Assembly in Parliament assembled to enact, in so far as; such ■ resula-tions purport to extend to matters and things bovond New Zealand, the power of the General Asseuiblv bciiig limited by tho Constitution Act. 1802. to making laws for the peace, order, and good government or New Zealand. 'J. That the Military Service Act., ■ 1016, which is referred to in regulation Xo. 1 H;)' of December 4th, JS)]<s, relative to "compulsory" military framing or service'-" in respect ol which an oflenee W"> included iu tho information (followed l>v convictions) against the appellants, was not. within the compctenev of the General Assembly in Parliament assembled to enact in purporting to control and compel tho services and conduct of persons beyond New Zealand, such power not being the authority conferred on the General Assemblv by the Constitution Act, 1852. .'3. That the regulations of 3>scember -Ith. 1910, .under several of which the appellants were charged and convicted, arc ultra vires. • 4. That assuming the War Regulations Act, 1916, to be within the competency of the Genera] Assembly m Parliament assembled to enact, regulation No. 4 ol"December Ith, 1914, made under it, in purporting to-create-a new offence. uamely, one of "seditious tendl encv. is invalid. ' o. That the informations and convictions following thereon arc bad in form and- substance as including- more than one oflenee. 6. That on the hearing of the informations an essential *,tci> wa3 omitted, i % nuch a's the provisions of Section (2) of the Justices of the Peac-o Act, 100S (as to the right,of the appellant* to.trial by jury) were not complied with, ■ ' . 7.' That, as a matter, of law, the alleged seditions ut'tcratice jn each instance, taken :with its context and read or considered with the whole utterance or speech, does not come within the meaning of the crime of sedition. No. 3 should, as to. two appeals by Semple as to utterances ou November 2Gth, 1916. and December 3rd, 1916, refer to the regulations of September 20th, 1913. No. 4 docs not apply to the two appeals by Semple above-mentioned m respect of utterances prior to the regulations of December 4th, 1916; No. 5 docs not apply to any of the appeals by Semple, as the several informations against him include only one offence. : 31r Hutchison stated'that- fire of the cases arose under the War Regulations of December 4th, 1916, made under tho Act of 1914. Two.others were under tho regulations iha'de on September 20th, 1915, and conccrucd Semp'c a.lonx?. In the first, instance, counsel stated the cases against Brindlc and Eraser were identical. However, the constitutional question coucerucd all, ahd lie would deal with that first.His Hoi:onr: "Do you suggest that the .iudicature can override Parliament? -Mr Hutchison: No, sir, I challenge the competency' of Parliament to pass tho Act., ... Mr Justice Cooper: Exactly., claim that tho Act is ultra vires? In supporting his ccntcntiou that the Military- Service Act, 1.91.6, was beyond the powers, of "Parliament as set out in tho Constitution Act, 1552, Mr Hutchison said that Parliament could only legislate for persons within Nov Zealand, and had no power to compel'service abroad. He referred to in re Gloich" and other cases iu support of his contention. Ho said oiiiv the, Imperial Parliament could "ive, by altering the Constitution Act, power to pass. such a law. With regard to the regulations made under the War' Regulations Act, 15)14, ho contended that as they dealt with ofTcnees beyond the colony, they were ultra vires and void. Hp- also submitted that the regulations purported to create a new offence, oho' of "seditious tendency."' This could , not bo-<Jone. as sedition .was'defined by the Crimes Act, 1908. 'and all seditious offences- must we dealt with' under that Act. and tho regulations could not alter or vary the. Crimes Act. • Counsel did not stress his fifth point, that tho informations charged more than, one offence, Mr Justice Cooper pointing out that only one offence was eharged. that, of seditious utterance. With "regard to trial by jury, ho contended that the War Regulations Act. Iyl4, did not exclude the rjght to trial by jury, but only excluded the necessity of the presentment of an indictment. In conclusion, he analysed the various speeches upon which ths» eonvictions were founded, and contended that tTic speeches did not bear the construction, put- unon them by the Magistrate. Sir Robert Stout said the Magistrate would not have, been honest if he'came to any other conclusion. Mr Justice Chapman asked whether if it.wero possible for Germany to have paid agents, eloquent speakers, in New Zealand, as she had in Russia and other places, to try to weaken the military forces or undermine the power of the Government, Germany would not want anything better for her purposes than the specclie* under diseussioD. Mr Hutchison replied that it would hate been better if the speeches had not been made, but what, he was trying to do was to show that the speeches did not offend against the regulations. In conclusion, Mr Hutchison contended upon the authority of Rex v. Burns, that, taking a wide ard liberal view of the speeches, the convictions could not be sustained. The Court adjourncu tiTl 10.30 a.m-to-morrow, when the Solicitor-General will tircscnt argument on behalf of the Crown.