EDITOR FINED

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 82, 6 April 1944, Page 6

EDITOR FINED

CENSORSHIP CASE

VIEWED IN NATURE OF TEST P.A. PALMERSTON N., This Day. Reserved decision was given by Mr. H. P. Lawry, S.M., in the case in •which Robert Hewitt Billens, editor, was charged with publishing in the "Manawatu Daily Times" a statement or indication that the censor had refused his authority for the printing or publication of certain matter or kind of matter. The case was heard on March 20. The Magistrate held that the article complained of clearly infringed Regulation 16 of, the Censorship Publicity Emergency Regulations. At the conclusion of his lengthy decision Mr. Lawry said that the prosecution had established the validity and scope of the regulations. He thought this should be regarded as a test case rather than one calling for a punitive penalty. The defendant was convicted and the fine wa. fixed at £5 Is, with costs 10s and solicitor's fee three guineas. Defending counsel, Mr. Oram, intimated intention to appeal. "THE SOLE JUDGE." In giving his decision, the Magistrate said that the prosecution was limited to complaint to two paragraphs in a leading article in the "Times," which he quoted. The defendant had admitted authorship and publication. Proceeding, the Magistrate said, inter alia: ' "Regulations 15 and 16 set out the powers and duties of the Director of Publicity. In carrying out these duties, and in exercising such powers, ; the Director is acting as a censor within the meaning of that word in the regulations. Regulation 15 provides that the Director of Publicity may give notices prohibiting the publication of certain matters where he is of the opinion that publication would be prejudicial to the public safety. As to whether or not the publication, would be prejudicial the Director of Publicity is made the sole judge. "The intention in Regulation 15 appears to be to restrict the Director of Publicity ,to matters which—in his opinion—are matters of public safety, but when we come to consider Regulation 16 (5) (B) we see ,that it is forbidden for any person to publish any statement or indication that a censor has refused his authority for the printing or publication of any matter, or kind of matter. It may be that in any such refusal the Director of Publicity may be acting ultra vires of powers conferred by Regulation 15, but it would appear' that once there is such a refusal of authority to publish, provided. his refusal is bona fide, its necessity is to be - determined solely by the Director of Publicity, uncontrolled or limited by any regulation. SCOPE OF THE POWERS. , "Whereas Regulation 15 purports to deal solely with .matters undoubtedly relating to the public safety, Regulation 16 (5) goes infinitely further and applies to matters of all kinds in respect of which there has been a refusal of authority to publish, whether or not they relate to the public safety and would include matters political, industrial, or any other matter in respect of which there had been such a refusal." The Magistrate quoted, the communications sent to the defendant by the Director of Publicity, also certain words used in the article dealing with suggested cases of recent suppression, and proceeded: " "The whole question is whether or not the part of the defendant's leading article referred to does amount to a statement or indication that the censor had refused his authority for printing and publishing any matter or kind of matter." After referring to the all-important question of interpretation and the extent of the regulations the, Magistrate quoted Viscount Maugham in the House,of Lords and proceeded: "To contravene the regulations a published article does not need to be a precise statement. The regulation uses the regulation mentioned. It is plain that it does indicate in no uncertain way that the censor has refused permission for the publication of certain matters; in fact, that is the raison d'etre of the article. I do not think there can be any doubt that the defendant has brought himself within the letter and spirit.of the regulation. . THE PENAL ASPECT. "As regards penalty there is no possible shadow of doubt that the defendant in penning and publishing the article complained of was acting under the highest possible motives and was clearly of the opinion that he was performing a public service in drawing attention to restrictions placed by the censor on the : publication of certain news which he thought the public should know. It is, of course, evident that in a democracy there should be complete freedom of expression—that is, in normal times, but the times are not normal.' We are engaged in a bitter conflict with strong and powerful enemies, and it may well be that in certain circumstances, in view of certain factors which are riot generally kiiown, the suppression of news may well be in the public interest, may •even be demanded by considerations of public security. FREE PRESS AND DEMOCRACY. "In view of the power with which they are invested, and which should be used to edification and not destruction,censors should ponder well before they suppress publication of certain matters. They should bear in mind that one of the greatest safeguards democracy possesses is in the freedom of the Press. On the other hand there is a duty on the Press to see that it is not used merely as a vehicle for propaganda but for frank, honest criticism and the informing of the public of news and matters that are of public concern. To muzzle the Press without adequate justification is the usurped prerogative of dictators, and in a democracy censors should, before suppressing publication of any matters, carefully weigh and consider those factors, and possible factors which would render suppression not only expedient but absolutely necessary. They should always keep in mind that what the Legislature intended in enacting the legislation under which the regulation was made was the public safety, and that should be their criterion when they are considering the , question whether in a particular case news should or should not^be published.

"In assessing the penalty for a ■breach one has to consider that the maximum penalty would be fitting for the most serious breach imaginable, but the range of offences provided for is so wide and. of such diversity of seriousness that there must of necessity be cases calling for only a light or nominal penalty. In this case there can be no doubt of any attempt at subversion, but the regulations constitute as offences various acts which under war conditions may in some remote way be considered as relevant to public order, or the welfare of the' community. It appears to me that the in question was written mainly .■with the object of testing whether the restrictions on publicity were valid, 'and if so how widely they operated. It has not been shown that the breach in this case has had any real or serious effect on the public order, or the welfare of the community. This prosecution has established the validity and scope of the regulations and I think should be regarded as a test case rather than one caling for a punitive -penalty."-