THE KNYVETT CASE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 735, 7 February 1910, Page 5

THE KNYVETT CASE.

THE DECISION OF CABINET.

"NO RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE."

LAW POINTS RAISED.,

An. official statemont relating to the reconsideration of the Knyvett case Was made on Saturday. It will lie remembered that the Knyvett Dcfenoo Committee complained that the evidence' taken' on first May of tho inquiry had not been placed before tho Adjutant-General .(Colonel Orison), on whoso recommendation Captain Knyvett was dismissed. The statement shows that the Prime Minister forwarded to Colonel Tuson a copy of-the evidenco which the Auckland deputation averred. had. been taken at the - inquiry; It was alleged in . the evidence that the president of the Court stopped Captain Knyvett from calling witnesses, upon'tho ground that the' Court was satisfied that it was, unnecessary. ■ Colonel Tuson, .y it -appears, then submitted a memorandum to the president of, tho Board of Inquiry asking:— '/ '.' ■ .• >.'

, (1) Whether the evidence recorded by the Conrt, and on' which he made Ms recommendation to the. Govern-' ment, was. complete;-and ' - -

. (2) Whether the president, as president of the Court, stopped Captain Knyvett from calling furtnnr oviuence, on the ground that it was considered unnecessary, and from vduc.h Captain Knyvett was alleged to have concluded; that the' charges against him wern; not jiroven, and it was unnecessary, for Mm to proceed further.

•Replying to > the • memorandum, the board stated that no evidence on oath was taken during the first day of the inquiry; - but . that the proteedihgs on; that day dealt' entirely with , points raised by : Knyvett; 'as to privilege objections to the charges against him and with >his ; right to. be assisted.; by council or a friend. The objections and the rulings were recorded and the evidence of each .witness was read , over and agreed to as correct.; The president 'did not stop Knyvett from calling; further/ evidence. The Court' explained' to him that any evidenoe produced by him must be | relevant ; to the charges against himselfj ateo,. that the Court' was not concerned with the truth' or untruth of the allegations against the ...Chief of the . General Staff, and that: consequently, no evidence in support of them would bo admitted. Knyvett stated on oath that he 1 honestly ■ bolieved the newspaper articles commenting on, his Company's .visit, to Wellington, correctly ■ repotted the view! expressed' by ■ Colonel'. Bobin regarding' it, that these articles completely spoiled , his undertaking, ■ and' that thoy, belittled him before his .men . and . the.'pnblic. ; >'He swore that hoi was not actuated by malicc in writing' the -'letter; which' U the sub ject of . this' inquiry.: He also broughi .witnesses in' supportof,;.: his "statement .that he had been • approached by othei ofßcore .who . considered, they. had - sufforec from - 'Unwarranted interference on th> part; of-I tiie. Chief of the General Staff After this ..evidence, as recorded in thi proceedings, was ' given, the Court in formed Knyvett:that-it was unnecessar; to produca further evidenced a simila! nature. The Court did not - make anj statement lyhich oould have justified hia in.; concluding 'that, the. charges agains him were ..not proven. ... The nextj step in ' connection with thi matter was. that the' Solicitor-General wa asked by the .Pr|ine Minister ;at ;th< instaneo of Colonel' Tusoti for an opinioi on thoiollowing points:—' '..>'■■■

■, (1) Whether Colonel Eobin was a . material, witness, and.if so, whetherthe Court .was justified in refusing to allow his evidence on the-grounds A irrelevancy. (2) Whether the Court waa justified, from a legal point of view,.in refusing to admit evidence, •in support:of \ the, allegations .against V : the. Chief of the General Staff, as 1 thereby the accused'waa. unable 1 to prove "provocation- by a superior." • In roply the Solicitor-General Btated thst in his. opinion the Court was : jnst'fi«d; jn refusing to hear.-, the i evidence of Colonel Eobin; and of tHe ' other witnesses; ; whose 1 . Evidence : was rejected. "It is evident,", he ■ said, voile; with passementeri trimmings of got ' from the report of. the inqury that Captain' Knyvett s • intention,. in : examining 1 Colonel Robin: and those other Witnesses was. to prove .the truth of the acfiusationa made by, : him ' against• that officer. ' This issue was, however,;as the Court rightly pointed out, irrelevant to .the inquiry. The question .before, the .Court was 'not whether", those accusations wefe true or false, but whether in maMig them in the manner.: in which they were , liiade (and irrespective ' of their, truth or falsehood) Captain Knyvett: was. guilty of an offense ttjjainst military discipline which justified his dismissal. I ain of opinion that.-thf evidence is Bnificieht'to justify, as 4 matter of law, the. conQlusioiijvthat' Cabtiin Knyvett was guilty: of ,' insubordination' within the; meaning of Section 54 of the Defence Act, 1908.' - That term is "wide" enough to include' any coisduot oa the part of ian inferior which is with : his proper relation of subordination to his 'superior' officers,, and .includes,' therefore, such an attack.on.the:character and competence of Colonel Hobin as was made in .this case.. Independently of Section 51 of. the Act; it .would seem': that \ Captain Knyvett! had also committed a. breach of I the regulations as . to the discipline of the ! Defence Forces. (See_ Regulations 174 to 180.) ; These- regulations prescribe' the, method in which aggrieved members of the Defence Forces are' to bring, their: complaints to. the : notice of the authorities, and the prescribed method was not followed by Captain Knyvett. It is tme that-the charge formulated for. the Court .of Inquiry does not Bpfeoifically refer: to Section 51 of the Act or to the Regulations, but I think' that the'.defendanthad sufficient notico of the nature of the. offence with which he was charged and a sufficient opportunity of. answering that charge,". -These views were confirmed by the Attorney-General, whose opinion' vfas also taken on the points raised. : "When the ■ papers went before Cabinet," says the Prime Minister, "the whole matter received the fullest possible consideration. V Cabinet decided .that- it had no recommendation, to make to: his Excellency., The. position now is that the decision for. Captain Knyvett's dismissal stands."

THE DECISION A "THUNDERBOLT." CIVIL LAW TO BE TRIED. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) ■ Auckland, February 5. Interviewed in regard to, the intimation that the Cabinet; has reconsidered the Knyvett case' and' has no recommendation to make, Mr. J. S. Dickson (Chairman of the Knyvett Defence Committee) Said that he was greatly surprised at the' decision which' Cabinet nad come to. "It is evident, that the whole thing was a farce," said Mr. Dickson, "and I will call a meeting of the committee on.Monday next to lay the matter before our legal advisers. ,We intend to, fight ■ the matter to a finish, and' will take it into 1 the law Courts. Cabinet's decision comes as a thnnderbqlt not alone to me but, I am sure, to ■ the Auckland public, and I- feel now . that Mr. Knyvett has been more unjustly treated than ever. Wo asked that the opportunity of. thrashing. the matter out should do' giyen. in a new trial, and that;, request has been refused. It can now be taken for granted that the wholo of tho facts'will be adduced ui the, coWse of a. Civil 'action.".