"FRIVOLOUS"

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 24, 28 July 1944, Page 6

"FRIVOLOUS"

RATIONING CASE

DISMISSAL BY BENCH A charge of aiding and, abetting another man in the illegal possession of a ration book was preferred against Archibald Charles Harrington, secretary, before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court this morning. After admitting the facts. Barrington conducted his own defence and asked the Magistrate to dismiss the charge on the grounds that it was "frivolous and vexatious," and claimed that the transferring of coupon books was a universal practice that the rationing authorities had made no serious attempt to check. The case was dismissed. , Donald Wills, who was sentenced to three months' imprisonment in June for escaping from a defaulters' camp, had previously appeared on a charge of illegally possessing a ration book the property <J£ an . eight-year-old boy, Michael Barrington, and which was found in his possession when he was arrested. It was pleaded for him that this was one of the first cases of its 'kind and that it might serve as a warning to other people and a conviction only entered. The Bench imposed a fine of £5. When Barrington was. called and the charge read he pleaded not guilty. "Why do you do that?". asked Mr. Stout ' "The other man has said you gave him the book." "I have been asked if I pleaded puifty or not guilty," replied the defendant. "I plead not guilty." He was ordered to stand down. When, the case was called again after the completion of the hearing of undefended cases, Barrington said that he was prepared to admit that he had lent Wills the book, but was not prepared to admit that he had committed a crime in doing so. The Bench: It is an offence, not a' crime. .-■ ' 4 "Then 1 do not admit that I have committed an offence," replied defendant. ■ " Detcctive-Ssrgeant J. Thompson, who proserfuted. said Barrington was charged under a-regulation which provided for a penalty of 12 months' imprisonment, a" fine of £100. or both. The Magistrate commented that he did not think there should be a penalty for, aiding and , abetting.. greater than that for the original offence. The only sensible construction to be placed on the section was to consider that it referred to the original offence. OFFICIAL CROSS-EXAMINED. Cross-examining an official of the Rationing Section, Barrington elicited the information that there were nine clothing coupons loft in the book, a second issue ration book issued in October, 1943. "Is there anything in that book that indicates that the coupons are not to be transferred or, lent?" he asked. Witness: No. There is nothing in the regulations prohibiting lending or transferring the coupons?^-No, but the regulations prohibit anyone except a member of the family from using that book. In the current ration book there is a new instruction issuing that warning?— Yes. ■"' - .■".-. Is' there anything to prevent me from buying clothing with that book and giving it away?— No. This book is just issued to ensure equality of purchase. Would you say that it has not been a wide practice to loan coupons?— Yes, I think so. Have there been similar .prosecutions before?— There have been prosecutions for being illegally in possession of a ration book. There have been no cases for aiding and abetting?— That is not an offence. Then why am I charged?— Witness did not reply. Do you know of any such prosecutions?—l don't' know of any. If I'd • taken this person along to the shop, bought the goods and handed them over to him, that would not be an offence? —No. ; So that in achieving the same object in a different way I am committing an offence?— Yes. Petrol coupons are transferable?—l understand not. The Bench: Why do you, say that when there is a Supreme Court decU sion that they are? ' ,v. " x Witness: I'm not an expert in petrol rationing. . Meat coupons are transferable?— No. But they are issued in a form .which makes them easily transferable?—lt is still an offence.' A REGULATION. The Bench:. What makes them not transferable? Witness: There is a regulation. , "We - are becoming a regulated people," said defendant, "and I object to this form of prosecution." Recently a friend stayed with me and I got half a pound of butter on his emergency coupons. If Wills had been staying with me, could he then have taken my.book and. got goods?— If he were living with you. There is no evidence in this case to show that Wills was not living with me.—He could use the book *for food, not clothing. , . The direction doesn't say so.—lt was not intended that that should happen. The Bench: How" are the directions given? Are .they gazetted? . Witness: They are mostly in the Gazette. This is one. . i Defendant asked if witness was' aware that.it-was intended to make clothing 'coupons separate in the next issue of a ration book. Witness said he did not know, because the new book had not been issued yet, and defendant replied that the Rationing Department had stated in reply to a query that this was their intention. Apparently steps were being taken to make clothing coupons more readily available than they were now. Detectiye C. Brown gave evidence of an interview with defendant-when the rationing book, .had been found in Wills's' possession. Ke was asked by defendant if at 'the time he did not have in mind a prosecution in connection with Wills's escape, and said that if defendant did not answer he could be prosecuted under the regulations for refusing information. The witness replied that he had said it seemed to him that the refusal of information might constitute an offence. DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSIONS. "Tills is just another instance of the restriction of freedom,"' said defendant. "You say that if I had refused to give information concerning one set of regulations I might be prosecuted under an entirely different set." When the police case ended, defendant addressed the Court from the dock and said he intended to ask for the dismissal of the. charge on several grounds. "Firstly, it is frivolous and ■ vexatious," he said. "I submit that the j law should be used for the benefit of I the individual, and we should not have rules for the sake of having rules. Neither the community nor the individual are harmed by the transfer of coupons. It is a universal practice and there has not been any real attempt on the part of the authorities to stop it. "It helps to adjust the inequalities of rationing. How is anyone harmed so long as the community as a whole does not get more than the total amount of goods available? There is no question here of black marketing. If it was widely known that it was an offence to transfer coupons then the matter could be quite easily overcome by going to the shop with the person and handing the goods over to him, and there is nothing in the regulations to prevent it." The Bench: I am not satisfied that this 'new direction in the book .is sufficient to make it a direction by the controller. It ought to be gazetted. There appear to be wide powers given the controller in the matter of directions to the extent that even a verbal direction might, hold. "The prosecution has gone a long way round to bring' this charge against me." said defendant. Detective-Sergeant Thompson said defendant, was quite wrong in suggesting that. The giving away of meat and petr«l coupons could not be prevented, commented the Bench. Defendant replied that he had given meat coupons away. "You had better not make that public," said his Worship. , "If your Worship will dismiss the case now I won't have to go on with all this argument,"-suggested Barrington. • . "I will dismiss it." said the Magistrate, and did so immediately.