Sect To Have Use Of Memorial Hall

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28980, 22 August 1959, Page 12

Sect To Have Use Of Memorial Hall

lAew Zeauina Press Association)

AUCKLAND, August 21.

In a reserved judgment given in the Supreme Court at Auckland Mr Justice Gresson has made a declaration that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and its plaintiff members are entitled to have access to the Mount Roskill war memorial hall to hold Bible lectures at such reasonable times and upon such reasonable conditions as the Mount Roskill Borough Council shall impose. His Honour’s decision follows the hearing’ of an application in May by the society for a direction ordering the council to allow the society to use the hall. In an interim judgment earlier this month, his Honour expressed the view that four members of the society, resident in the borough, should be added as plaintiffs.

At the hearing Mr F. H. Haigh and Mr P. G. Hillyer represented the plaintiffs, and Mr L. M. Southwick Represented the council. .

In outlining the facts of the case his Honour said: — “This hall, which was opened on October 29, 1955, was financed by public subscription and grant from the defendant council, which the Government subsidised in ■ accordance with its policy of ' helping to finance war memorial community centres. “It was a condition of the subsidy ‘that the project be vested in the territorial local authority to ensure that the memorial will always be available for the use of all sections of the community.’ ” His Honour said, in stating the policy of the Internal Affairs Department. it was clear the hall was not a shrine of a purely symbolical nature, but was rather a memorial community centre. R.S.A. Resolutions On September 23 and December 2, 1956, and again in April, 1957. the plaintiff society was granted the use of the hall for a public Bible lecture, continued his Honour. On each of these occasions, the lectures took place without incident or disorder of any kind. “Following a request by Jehovah’s Witnesses for the use of the Levin memorial hall and the Kaitaia swimming baths, the Dominion executive council of the New Zealand Returned Services’ Association passed a resolution in February, 1958, to the effect that a war memorial is sacred to the memory of those who served their country in time of peril, and that where a memorial takes the form of a public utility, this principle should apply to the whole utility, whether it be a building, park, playing field or swimming bath.” His Honour added that the resolution stated that persons who refused to defend or serve their country during the war had no moral right to be in, or about, a memorial, and their presence was an affront to those whom the memorial commemorated. A copy of the resolution was sent to the defendant council on February 24, 1958, and on April 3, 1958. the council advised the New Zealand Returned Services’ Association that it had passed a resolution that applications by Jehovah's Witnesses for the use of the hall would be declined. “On- July 8, 1958, plaintiff requested the use of the hall for the purpose of a public Bible lecture and at a meeting on August 5 the council resolved to decline its application and plaintiff was notified by letter next day,” said his Honour. “In these circumstances the plaintiff alleges a deniel of natural justice, and asserts that in passing its resolution the defendant council failed to act judicially, and indeed, discriminated against the plaintiff and unjustly infringed its so-called inherent right to have access to and speak in public places. “Subversive Organisation” “It is not seriously disputed that in refusing the plaintiff the use of the hall, the borough council was acting in deference to the wishes of the New Zealand Returned Servicemen's Association.” said his Honour. “It was doubtless greatly influenced by the fact that on October 24. 1940, the plaintiff body had been declared a ‘subversive organisation’ by the' AttorneyGeneral “On May 8. 1941, the AttorneyGeneral modified his original declaration so as to permit Jehovah’s Witnesses to hold meetings for the study of the Bible, prayer or worship subject to certain reasonable conditions. “On March 27, 1945, while the war was still in progress, the original declaration that Jehovah’s Witnesses were a subversive organisation was revoked. The plaintiff body was thus allowed to hold its religious meetings in New’ Zealand for the greater part of the Second World War and it has incurred no subversive stigma during the last 14 years.” j After citing legal authorities, I his Honour continued: j “In his vesting order, the Minister of Lands vested the land upon which the memorial hall is erected in the mayor, councillors and citizens of the Borough of Mount Roskill for recreation purposes, pursuant to the Reserves and Domains Act, 1953, and in trust for that purpose. “In my view,” he said, “the council holds the land on a charitable trust for a public purpose, and the trust should thus receive a benignant construction.” Provision of Act His Honour said that Section 33 of the Reserves and Domains Act, , 1953, showed quite conclusively i that the administrating body should not so deal with the reserve that the public were excluded from free access to it. and it was at least arguable that if public Bible reading could be legarded in the wide sense of “recreation.” then in refusing the plaintiff permission to use the I memorial hall for that innocuous purpose, the council discriminated unjustly against it and infringed the spirit, if not the letter, of the section. ' ; “There is, however, another, and in my view stronger, ground upon which I prefer to base my judgment,” continued his Honour. “The defendant council accepted the subsidy' previously referred to, and in due course the land and the memorial hall on it, on trust that the memorial community centre would always be avail- 1 able for all sections of the

community and maintained on fis wide a basis as is practicable. “It cannot be disputed that the citizens of the borough who are Jehovah’s Witnesses comprise a lawful section of the community, and, although in a relative minority, they must, in my view, enjoy the same legal rights and bear the same legal obligations as members of the Returned Services’ Association.

“In declining to allow the plaintiff the use of the hall, the defendant council, in my view, acted in breach of the wide terms of this trust. The Court has full power to see that the trust is properly carried out.

“The council plainly made its decision bona fide, but, in my view, upon an imperfect appreciation of the extent of its obligations and its trust. “In these circumstances, it should be given, the opportunity to reconsider the matter now that the nature of its trust has been defined.”