NATURALISATION

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 8, 10 July 1922, Page 3

NATURALISATION

ALLEGED BREACH OF REVO-

CATION ACT

MOTION TO QUiASH CONVICTION,

In the Supreme Court on Saturday, his Honour Mr. Justice Hosking heard a motion to make absolute a rule nisi quashing the conviction of Friedrich Franz Walter, by Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M.,1 tmder the Revocation of Naturalisation Act, 1920.

Mr. E. G. Jellicoe appeared in support of the motion, and Mr. P. S. K. Macassey to oppose it. Section 5 of the Naturalisation Amendment Act 1920, provides that every person having possession of any letters of naturalisation is required to deliver them up pursuant to the Act, and who fails so to deliver them up within one month after the publication in the Gazette of an Order-iniCouncil revoking the naturalisation of the person to whom such letters of naturalisation relate shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for three months' or a fine of £100.

Wolter was convicted by the Magistrate in respect of a failure to deliver up his naturalisation papers, on the 19th October, 1921. The Act required the letters of naturalisation to bo delivered up within one month after the passing of the Act—namely, 9th August, 1920. More than six months had elapsed since that date.

Mr. Jellicoo contended that as the time limit of six months allowed by the Justices of the Peace Act for laying an information had elapsed, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction; and, secondly, that the offence was not a continuing one. He also contended that neither the information nor the conviction was within the wording of* section 3, as the conviction did not specify the person to whom the naturalisation papers should have been delivered. He further contended on several grounds that conviction was bad on the ground of uncertainty, and the further ground that the Magistrate had respited the conviction by postponing the sentence. . .

Mr. Macassey contended, firstly, that Wolter had misconceived his remedy, which should have been by way of appeal and not certiorari; secondly, that the offence! was a continuing offence; that by section 2 of the 1920 Act there was continuing duty for all time on a person who had become de-naturalised to .deliver up his naturalisation papers, but an offence was not committed unless and until he had failed to deliver them up for a month after the passing of the Act; that the duty still continued, and that it was a continuing offence, punishable each day for failure to deliver.

The case was then adjourned for the hearing of further argument.