SEDITION CHARGE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 11, 13 July 1914, Page 8

SEDITION CHARGE

A POINT FOR THE APPEAL COURT HAD YOUNG ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED OF SAME' CRIAIE? The now notorious speech ma3e by William Thomas Young at the Basin Reserve on 26th October last year was again the basis of legal proceedings t6day —on this occasion before the Court of Appeal, comprising their Honours tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stoiifc), Mr. Justico Chapman, Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Stringer. The speech referred to was as follows: " I want to say the special constables are being called for; a number of them were marched to the Newt own Depot last night. I want to say this • that if the Police Force of this country are going to be utilised—l know the individual police don't want to be used for the purpose—but if the authorities of this country are going to use them to suppress the working class, I will undertnke —we will undertake—to mass in this city .of Wellington 10,000 or 15,000 armed men ready to protect themselves as armed men. ... If wo have got to fight th© Police Fore© and the military it has got to be done in style and effectually. It is a very easy matter indeed. There are 10,000 or 15,000 men in sup port of you and to protect 'you against the baton of the police authorities. If the employers are not prepared £0 act in a conciliatory spirit, and if they put on scabs to work cargo, there will not be a ship leaving this port, and. if needs be, there will not be a wharf for scabs to work on. Don't you be afraid of them. If I have got to incite the multitude, I will incite them, and in a proper manner," or words to the like effect. On a charge of inciting—arising out of the sentiments expressed—Young was imprisoned for three months. > The charge of sedition based on the same speech was heard afterwards, but the jury disagreed, and a new trial was ordered. The second trial (on the latter Charge) took place on 15th May, when the principal feature was that Mr. T. M. Wilford, Counsel for accused, pleaded that Young had already been convicted of the crime with which he'v/as then charged, an appeal which, if upheld, would have secured an acquittal. Basing his decision 'upon the'result of the appeal in the Holland case, in which Mr. Wilford had had a similar plea dismissed, his Honour Mr. Justice Hosking overruled the plea. The accused pleaded not guilty, but after trial was found guilty, the judge, however, deferring sentence until the points raised by Mr. Wilford had been considered by the Court of Appeal. TWO CASES COMPARED. When the appeal was heard to-day, Mr. J. W. Salmond, X.C, SolicitorGeneral, appeared for the Crown, and Messrs. T., Wilford and P. J. O'Regan in support of the appeal. Mr. Wilford first addressed the Bench. He said ho wished' first to point out the difference under two heads in the Holland case and the present case. They were : —(1) In Holland's case, a plea of his previous acquittal, and in this case previous conviction, Young having'been actually convicted ahd sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, and bound over to keep the peace in two sureties of £250 each) (2) in Holland's case,' the trial for inciting •to resist the police only concerned part of one of two speeches delivered by him. In the present case the conviction for,iinoiting was determined upon the whole of the speech in question, and no particular words were stressed. In support of his argument, Mr. Wjilford said he relied on section 6 of the Crimes Act, 1908, and section 24 (g) of the' Acts Interpretation Act. It had been definitely settled by the Court in Holland's case that one speech might constitute different offences, but ho wished to contend strongly in the present case that the language used was "all of a kind." The whole of it was an incitement to the people addressed to resist the police, and he contended that the striking out of a single sentence of that speech made no difference ence. It was plain from the evidence given by Mr. Riddell, S.M., that Young was convicted of inciting on his whole speech, and not on the words struck outr—( 'if a police constable uses his baton to you give him one back, and if one won't do make it a double-header"). Mr. Wilford submitted that Young was 1 punished for the whole speech, while Holland was acquitted on one speech and was, indicted on two speeches. Under the Crimes Act the law of sedition took no cognisance of the effect of the words, but of their intention, and in Young's case there could not have been any intention,' as the acts of violence on tho wharves had "been committed before he delivered his speech Mr. O'Regan followed and contended that evidence as to events which took place two days before the speech waa inadmissible. FOR tfHE CROWN. Mr. Salmond, for the Crown, admitted that ifc was perfectly true that no man could be convicted or punished twice for. the same offence, but he contended that his friends had submitted a very different principle. One act might mean two offences. Among the instances he cited was that of a railway enginedriver who, Mr. Salmond contended, could be tried and convicted for the death of each person killed in a collision. —also for breach ofi the railway regulations in travelling at excessive speed. The case was proceeding when The Post went to press.