BARNES CONVICTED OF DEFAMATION

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26491, 4 August 1951, Page 8

BARNES CONVICTED OF DEFAMATION

Two Months* Gaol Term Imposed ACTION BROUGHT BY CONSTABLE /New Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, August 3.

Harold Barnes, who was president ef the deregistered New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union, was convicted by Mr H. Jenner Wily, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court to-day on a charge of criminal defamation. Barnes was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The Magistrate said that it was not * case for a fine to be met by some organisation as had been suggested by counsel—it was a ease of deliberate criminal defamation of a public person, and could only be punishable by imprisonment. The case was attended by a packed gallery.

Leave to lay the information against Barnes was given on July 14 by Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., on the application of Constable Robert James Edwards, who alleged that in references to a clash at Auckland on May 18 between Eolice and waterside workers Barnes ad criminally defamed him. Mr P. C. McGavin, who appeared for Barnes, moved to lodge an appeal, and the Magistrate fixed security, but Barnes refused to proceed with an appeal Mr McGavin said later that, although Barnes had seven days in which to appeal against the sentence, no appeal would be lodged. “We would not have let him go in, if we were going to appeal,” he added. Before entering the prisoners’ room, Barnes said gooa-bye to his wife aha daughter, ana some of his supporters, who had come from the body of the Court

Addressed by Counsel Mr McGavin said the evidence of Senior-Sergeant F. W. Edwards as to what occurred in Lower Queen Street on Friday, May 18, was made negative by newspaper photographs, which had been produced. “I submit that the police discharged their duties with great impetus, and force among a large crowd, and that this constituted a real danger to persons in the street,” continued counsel. “I also suggest that the evidence given by the police witnesses concerning the incident when the old man on crutches was knocked down outside the Post Office was extremely sketchy; and unsatisfactory. It was also conflicting. I submit that the evidence of Barnes and the other witnesses called on his behalf regarding this Incident should be accepted by the Court The Crown has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the words were used without justification " Constable Edwards, by his conduct, was Seen to do something which distinguished him from the rest of the police on duty that afternoon. Counsel

Mr y. R. Meredith for the Crown said that the matter was of very serious moment and if the defamation was believed it could injtire Constable Edwards and his future in the Police Force. It would also be a grave reflection on the whole force. Barnes had not even suggested when he used se,$ e , 1 w ° rds J n his speech at the Town Hall that he had been carried away by excitement or that he had made a mistake. Barnes had attempted to maintain the allegations on oath. He had taken the responsibility of repeating it and if untrue, then the defamation was now made more serious a hundredfold. The old man concerned had stated in evidence in a very clear manner that he had hot been kicked. He had no bruises or marks on hint Constable Edwards could ‘not have' been in a position where Barnes and'

others said he was. This related to the second incident on the afternoon of May 19. ‘‘Besides all this, there is a mass of police evidence showing that a cordon was placed around the old man when he fell,” said Mr Meredith. “Why should a young constable kick a helpless old man with crutches, when he was on the ground. Would he want to do this when other police were with him, and in the presence of many civilians?" asked Mr Meredith.

Magistrate’s Comments The Magistrate said it was the first case of its kind in New Zealand for 50 years. The prosecution had satisfied him and had established its case. The plea of justification ahd truth could be made and was made by Barnes. The matter at issue was whether the words he uttered were true. “Constable Edwards gave his evidence clearly and was unshaken bv cross-examination and he had the appearance of being an absolutely honest witness,” the Magistrate said. “The evidence given by Barnes and his demeanour when giving it were not the same. I have no doubt in my mind the witnesses called for the prosecution were not lying. Barnes has not established the truth of his own allegations, which were seriously defamatory. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Barnes must be convicted.” Addressing the Magistrate on the question of penalty, Mr McGavin said that, irrespective of whether Barnes believed his words were true, it must be borne in mind that he was making his first public speech since the start of the waterfront trouble some three months previously.. “As this is the first charge under the act in 50 years there can be no question of a deterrent involved,” said Mr McGavin. “Barnes should not be punished for any part he has played in the waterfront trouble. In a peribd Of 21 weeks he had not faced any charge brought under the Emergency Regulations. The words complained of were part of a long speech made in the Tbwn Hall by Barnes and the possibility of words reflecting on the whole Police Force was negatived when earlier in the same speech he passed some commendatory remarks about the police. “Bentes is an official, and where officails are involved in an official position I suggest that the case should be met by a fine which would fall on the whole of his organisation and that he should not be sent to prison. Now that the waterfront trouble has subsided it is important in the public interest that feeling should be allowed to settle down ana not be inflamed or irritated.” Mr McGavin said that Constable Edwards had now been cleared, so that any question ot penalty would be irrelevant to the constable. Barnes’s character as a citizen had not been impusned before, and, as this was an isolated and novel offence, counsel suggested that he might be fined so that the impact would be felt by the people he represented. “This was not an offence by ah official in a representative capacity at all.” said, the Magistrate, “but that of a man who addressed a largelyattended public meeting ahd made a deliberate criminal defamation on a public person. It was a very serious detamatidn. It was done deliberately. More than that, Barnes now claimed to the Court, repeated on oath what he had said, and again said it was true. This is not a case for a fine—to be met by some organisation. The only punishment for such a base is rine of imprisonment. I fix the term of two witk hard