Prosecution of parade major ‘misconceived’

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32636, 18 June 1971, Page 2

Prosecution of parade major ‘misconceived’

(Neu Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, June 17. A private information of disorderly behaviour brought against the commanding officer of a military parade which marched up Queen Street on May 12, was described by Mr H. Y. Gilliand, S.M., in the Auckland Magistrate’s Court today as misconceived and abusive.

The Magistrate was giving judgment on a charge that John Millbank Masters, an Army major, behaved in an offensive ?.or disorderly manner in Queen Street and the Civic Square, Auckland, on Maty 12.

The information was laid by. Roger Norman Fowler, under the Police Offences Act, 1927.

Mr B. Littlewood appeared for the informant and Mr D. S. Morris for Major Masters.

The courtroom was packed, with'i many people having to stand: Later, when the Magistrate was delivering his verdict, he severely reprimanded a student who attempted to tape-record the proceedings. The court clerk seized the tape recorder and the youth was ordered out of the courtroom.

Remarking in his opening address that this case was unprecedented, Mr Littlewood said that the charge arose out of the military parade up Queen Street by the 161st Artillery Battery. He said that the battery had just returned from Vietnam and that the parade had been led by the commanding officer, Major Masters. “It is alleged that this military spectacle in the public place was offensive or disorderly, contravening the Police Offences Act,” said Mr Littlewood.

He said he would call witnesses of the parade who would say that they had found it offensive.

“If the parade offended a number of right-thinking people then a conviction must follow,” said Mr Littlewood.

Lance - Bombardier James Thomas Bell, a member of the 161st Artillery Battery when it marched up Queen Street that day, said that the 120 members were given specific instructions to “sit tight” un-

less any members were physically manhandled or interfered with by anyone watching the parade. He said that the soldiers carried self-loading rifles, and that six howitzers were towed in the parade. There was sporadic clapping along the way, and crowd reaction was favourable until the parade reached the official dais, said the witness.

Roger William Boshier, a university lecturer, said he had been grossly offended by the parade. “It was the most obscene thing that has ever happened in Auckland," said the witness. He said that the soldiers had returned from an illegal and immoral war. At this point the Magistrate intervened and said that they were dealing with a charge of disorderly behaviour, not with politics.

Roger Norman Fowler, shop assistant and informant in the matter, said he was most seriously offended and angered by the sight of the soldiers who, he said, had been involved in the wholesale slaughter of Vietnamese. "I saw many people obviously shocked and offended by the parade,” he said.

He said he had discussed going to observe the parade some time before, and that he went there to express his horror and disgust. He did not actually notice Major Masters at the parade.

Mr Littlewood then called 16 more witnesses, many of whom were university students, who gave evidence of being offended and angered by the parade.

Mr Morris, in his submissions, said that the Court was concerned only with the activities of Major Masters.

He said that it was clear that Major Masters did not act in an offensive way.

“Viewed objectively, many of these witnesses went there looking for trouble,” said Mr Morris.

He said that this criminal charge had no basis for a case for the defendant to answer.

The Magistrate, giving judgment, dealt separately with the two offences charged. He said that he considered the parade was well disciplined.

“I don’t propose to go into the political side-issues of this case, but I do not doubt the sincerity of the evidence of the witnesses, which contained use of emotive language and in some cases wide generalisations.

"I am not satisfied that those people who gave evidence represent the general public feeling,” said the Magistrate.

With regard to offensive behaviour, the Magistrate said, he was not prepared to strain the facts. He said that in what was represented to witnesses he could not find offensive behaviour. He dismissed the charge. The charge of disorderly behaviour, the Magistrate said, was misconceived. He said that the criminal law could not be strained in any circumstances to the extent that Mr Littlewood wanted him to strain it

Mr Morris then told the Magistrate that as the charge was misconceived he would ask for substantial expenses. Mr Littlewood said that the case had drawn tremendous public interest—referring to the crowded courtroom—and that the informant had done something of a public service.

To this, the Magistrate said that the Court was the last bastion of individual freedom.

“It Is to be exercised with due responsibility and absolute bona tides. I find this case an abusive process', and I do not accept the bona tides of the informant”

He thereupon ordered the informant Fowler, to pay $lOO court costs and witness’s expenses for one witness.