Conviction Without Trial

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23717, 15 August 1942, Page 4

Conviction Without Trial

A correspondent, Mr John Hogan of Auckland, whose letter was printed in “ The Press ” yesterday, directs public attention to what appears to be a serious interference with the liberty of a British subject. The terms of a letter from the Attorney-General (the Hon. H. G. R. Mason) to Mr Hogan, which is quoted by our correspondent, indicate that although the publication of Mr Hogan’s periodical was originally prohibited for a period of three months, the real intention is a permanent prohibition. The Attorney-General’s reason for prohibiting publication of the journal, according to Mr Hogan, is that he has allegedly printed in it subversive statements. If there is sufficient evidence for this charge the duty of the Minister lies plainly before him: he should immediately take appropriate legal action against Mr Hogan. “ The Press ” has no knowledge of the charges against Mr Hogan nor of Mr Hogan himself beyond the facts that he is an Australian, that he is an advocate of a monetary policy to which “ The Press ” does not subscribe, and that he was, until a short time ago, conducting a periodical in support of his policy in Auckland. We are in no way concerned with the rights or wrongs of the case against Mr Hogan; but we are seriously concerned that, without trial in the courts of the land, to which every British citizen is entitled, arbitrary action should be taken by a Minister of the Crown, on charges not legally proved, against any British subject. Mr Hogan is either guilty or not guilty of extremely serious offences but evidently no steps have been taken to test his guilt or otherwise in the place where he is entitled to have it tested. The Minister has convicted him in advance of prosecution. War time, or any other time, does not excuse arbitrary action of this kind. Suspension of publication until trial is reasonable and probably prudent. Total prohibition without trial is dictatorial and contrary to all ideas of British justice. Admittedly, the regulations under which the Minister’s action was presumably taken are extremely wide, but the public will be profoundly disturbed if it is discovered that they can be used to deny any man his ordinary right of trial in the courts of the land. Many prosecutions have already been

taken for the publication of subversive statements. Why is similar action not being pursued in this case? Ample time has elapsed in which this could have been done.