LIBEL ACTION

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 128, 1 June 1935, Page 11

LIBEL ACTION

COUNSELS' ADDRESSES

"GRAVE ALLEGATIONS"

The trial of Albert Edward Robinson, editor of "Farming First," in the Magistrate's Court on charges of criminal libel brought against him by the Commissioner of Police (Mr. W. G. Wohlmann) ; ended shortly before "The Post" went to press yesterday after-" noon, and the Magistrate's findings were indicated briefly. Prior to the Magistrate (Mr. W. F. Stilwell) announcing his decision to fine Robinson £25, wfth costs and witnesses' expenses amounting to £32 3s Bd, counsel addressed the Court, Mr. A. C. A. Sexton for Robinson and Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell on behalf of Mr. Wohlmann. "LIBEL OF GRAVEST KIND." The libel complained of was stressed by Mr. Treadwell as a libel of the gravest kind. In the first place an attack.'had been made upon the purity of the, administration of justice. Furthermore, Mr. Wohlmahn had been attacked in his official as well as his personal capacity. A reckless and false statement had been made against Mr. Wohlmann and he had been put to unnecessary expense. The libel Had been aggravated by the attitude adopted towards Mr. Wohlmann until the vejy last moment when Mr. Wohlmann'went into the witness box. There had been no sign of humility, no word of apology, and at the last moment, when it was inevitable, Robinson had pleaded guilty to the offence charged. In his submission, lit was1, necessary to stamp out such a type of journalism or to express disapproval of such a mendacious libel, and the only way to do it was by inflicting; a penalty which would be an expression of the Court's disapproval. Criticism had been voiced that Mr. Wohlmann had not been put into the witness box. He would like to say, however, that his advisers had taken the view that he would have been wrong to have entered the witness box before a charge or some complaint, not merely specious insults, had been levelled against him. In counsel's submission nothing but a severe penalty would meet the position. Mr. Sexton contended that Mr. Robinson had made it perfectly clear that the Commissioner of Police was not really in his mind when he wrote the article. An unreserved withdrawal had been made by the defence after hearing Mr. Wohlmann's explanation from the witness box. That explanation, it was contended, could have been given earlier, and had that been done it probably .would have altered the. whole course of events. No attack had been made upon Mr. Wohlmann in his personal capacity. The action had been taken by him to clear his position and name as Commissioner of Police. There was nothing reckless about the action of'Mr. Robinson. The article had been written without any malice. The evidence, he thought, .clearly proved that Mr. Hobinson bore no malice whatever ogainst Mr. Wohlmann. The position i;pw was that Mr. Wohlmann had had his actions vindicated. Mr. Robinson had had to bring witnesses down from Auckland and had been Involved in heavy cost. MAGISTRATE'S DECISION. 'In this case," said the Magistrate, "I have deliberately endeavoured to waive the too strict application of the rules of evidence in order to give the defendant the fullest opportunity, consistent with' the necessity of keeping the issues' within reasonable bounds, to develop1 his defence. .!;f.'The allegations made in the offending article are of a grave nature, containing not only an attack on the character as a. police, officer of the Commissioner of Police, but containing also a grave allegation striking at the very foundations of the administration of justice in this country. "With the admission filed immediately before hearing, and as the case has developed, it has become both abundantly, clear that the allegations in respect of the Commissioner and incidentally of the Ministers mentioned in evidence —namely, the Hon. C. E. Macmillan and the Hon. J. G. Cobbe— are entirely untrue, and that there was not the slightest justification for the references in the offending article. "Counsel1 for the defence, realising this, has n6w very properly acknowledged it, ; and has withdrawn all allegations or imputations, and reversed his client's plea to that of guilty. Finally,, the personal and official reputation of Mr. Wohlmann has been completely vindicated. An offence of a serious nature has1 been, of course, committed, and the penalty must be of such a nature as will be an effective deterrent." ■ Taking all relevant circumstances into consideration, the Magistrate concluded, he thought that the ends of justice would be'met adequately if the defendant was convicted and fined £25 and costs, in. default one month's imprisonment, in respect of one charge and convicted and discharged lon the others. ■• _^