GUILTY OF SEDITION

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2216, 31 July 1914, Page 8

GUILTY OF SEDITION

CASE OF W. T. YOUNG COURT OP APPEAL AFFIRMS CONVICTION

Law points raised in the Supreme Court in May last, during the trial of u illiam Thomas Young for sedition in connection with' his speech in tho Basin Reserve on October 26, 1913, wero the subject of a judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal yesterday, when the Bench was occupied by tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Stringer. History of the Case. Young had been -imprisoned for three months by tho Magistrate—in connection . with this speech— oil a charge of inciting members of the public to resist' tho' ■ police. Subsequently ho was tried tor sedition (the Crown relying on different words in t'ho speech for this charge) and at the first'trial the jury failed. to agree. A second trial took place in May iast, and at the hearing, Mr. 'I'. M. Wilford, who appeared for Young, put in a special plea of previous- conviction, on tho grounds that no had been lawfully convicted of the crime charged in tho count, or counts, on which such plea was pleaded. His Honour Mr. Justice Hoskmg over-ruled tliis plea of previous conviction. The right to appeal.was reserved by Mr. Wilford, and tho prisoner put in a plea of not guilty to tho charge. Tho jury returned a verdict ot guilty, but. passing _ of sentence was deferred until the points raised by Mr. VVilford could be argued before the .Court of ' Appeal;. When they, came on for argument early in the present month, Mr. T. M. "Wilford and Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for Young, while the Solici-tor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond, 1V.0.) appeared for the Crown.

/ Three Questions Raised. The judgment of the Court Was read yesterday by the Chief Justice, who said: "There are three questions raised in this case reserved: (1) Whether it is necessary to re-arraign a prisoner or., to call on him to plead anew after a.jury has disagreed and before the second jury is selected for his re- , trial'; (2) whether certain evidence was properly admitted; and (3) whether, under a plea of autrefois convict,' or under the provisions -of .Section 6of the ■ Crimes Act, 1908,' or- Section 24 sub-section (g) lie ' was entitled, to be acquitted? ' ~ . "As to the first question it is admitted by both counsel for the Crown and counsel for tho prisoner that it is not necessary that the prisoner should be called upon to plead afresh after a jury has -disagreed. Sections 153 and 154 the ■ Juries Act, 1903, are in. our opinion conclusive that no such calling for the plea is required., • "As to_, the second question iho evidence objected was that of two wit-' riesses who described' incidents in the 'strike,' that was in''existence - when, the speech was made by,.-tho prisoner, which speech the jury , found was. ser ditious. We think that for . the correct understanding of the; speech -concurrent circumstances can be proved and that 'the speech was really part of the happenings that were taking place in Wellington. The incidents proved had referenco as to the : oxistence. of two classes or parties in the City and it mado reference to tho shipping of. goods at the wharf, and it'was of such taken place two days before tM speech; that evidence was given. In fact, the speech was. itself , an incident -of:.,the. strike- the: nature and seriousness of .the speech, could not havo b'eeri:adequately understood if - what had - taken place' and > was taking place- had.-not been given in evidence. ■ < Holland's Case. "The.: third question raised is somewhat different from' the question "raised in Res v. Holland. In . that case reliance was placed on a previous conviction. The reasons given by the Court , in Rex v, Holland for the decision in that'ease are equally cogent for the de r cjsion'of this case so far as'the contention was made that tho speech was one though the charges are different. To make the plea successful the chargesmust be the same:.. • - r.y "We are of opinion , that .' as ; there, were in .this case two 'distinct, classes ■' of statements, one inciting persons to resist the police; and.one seditious, and as the charges wero different a conviction on the one is no answer to a conviction on the other. There Were two separate offences of which the prisoner was found guilty. Wo are therefore of opinion that' the conviction must-be affirmed.".