MANPOWER DIRECTION OF JOHN HOGAN

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 21, 19 October 1944, Page 7

MANPOWER DIRECTION OF JOHN HOGAN

The hearing of the charge against John Hogan, journalist and editor of “Democracy," that he failed to comply with a lawful manpower direction, was carried a stage further in the Magistrates’ Court, Lower Hutt, before Mr. Dobbio, S.M., yesterday. After further evidence had been called by the prosecution to prove the validity of the direction, the magistrate ruled such to have been established and, on the application of the defence, granted an adjournment to November 13’on the ground that two of the witnesses subpoenaed for the defence could not be present at yesterday’s hearing. When the hearing was resumed yesterday Mr. E. F. Rothwell, for defendant, asked that the letter from the controller of manpower to the district manpower officer Auckland, which had been referred to by the district manpower officer, Lower Hutt, at the previous hearing as initiating the direction of defendant into essential industry, be produced in Court. The magistrate, Mr. Rothwell said,, bad ruled at the time that it could not be enllod for, but counsel submitted that reference to the law on the matter showed that a document referred to by a witness to refresh his memory must be produced unless the witness could swear to it or his own previous knowledge. Counsel cited authorities for that submission. Mr. W. R. Birks, for the prosecution, said the letter formed part of a file which, by recent legal decisions, could be held to be privileged if the head of a department or the Minister saw fit to make claim. “The head of the department, Mr. Beckett, has been subpoenaed by the defence,” said Mr. Birks, "and I submit that the proper course would be to allow the matter to drop for the present, and then, when Mr. Bockett is in the witnessbox. to ask him about it.” The magistrate'; Are you going to claim privilege for the letter? ■Mr. Birks: I claim privilege. Mr. Rothwell suggested that the prosecution’s claim of privilege, was 14 days too late. The letter had already been quoted in Court and had been tlie subject of secondary evidence. "It is a mysterious letter.” said Mr. Rothwell, “and I claim we are entitled to know what is In It. It mav go to the root of the defence.’ The magistrate: I think Mr. Sliapeott should be recalled and we will see what happens. , The district manpower officer. Loner Hutt, Charles Frederick Sliapeott, returned to the witness-box. Mr. Rothwell asked if he might see the letter, to which witness replied that in his official capacity he could not show an official letter from the file. Mr Birks: I waive my claim of privilege 'so far as tlie letter Is concerned. Mr. Rothwell (to witness): You nre aware of tlie contents of the letter, f will read it to you. It is from the controller of manpower and Is directed to me district manpower officer, Auckland. The letter referred specifically to tlie matter of John Hogan, journalist and editor of “Democracy,” who. it stated, had been called up and graded 2 in the nietli-<-ai examination. Hogan’s appeal against Hie eall-up had been dismissed, with tlie qualification that Ills mobilization should be deferred for a stated period. The letter said it had been suggested that Hogan should lie directed into Industry, but it was also a suggestion that lie might soon bn called into the forces. The letter directed that inquiry should be made by he Auckland manpower office from Hie military area office as to when Hogan wns likely to be called Into the forces Such letters, witness told Mr. Uotnwell were customary In some cases. He did not remember any such coming to tlie Lower Hutt, office In the four months n which he had been In charge, bill he did not SCO nil the correspondence. rhe letter confirmed Hint Hogan had not been mobilized. Evidence was given regarding (bo status of defendant under the manpower regulations, and legal argument followed, after which Hie magistrate ruled that defendant camo under the regulations. The case was adjourned.