THE KNYVETT INCIDENT

Evening Star, Issue 14308, 5 March 1910, Page 12

THE KNYVETT INCIDENT

HOW MILITARY COURTS ARE CONDUCTED. NOT ANXIOUS TO (HOT AT THE TRUTH. [Specially Written tor the ‘Star.’] The third charge preferred against Captain Knyvett was that m his celebrated letter to".the Defence Minister be wrote: Since those article.-: have appeared [in the Wellington papers] 1 have been approached bv manv office! s throughout the whole of the North Island who,have had similar experiences of the unwarranted interference anti unexampled officialism of Colonel Robin. At the outset Captain Knyvett contended that as his letter bad already been ruled to be a privileged communication, it, must stand as a whole, and l hat a paragraph or a sentence here or tiieio could not be picked out on which to establish a charge. President; We are not here to try the truth of your charges. \\ e are here to try whether you committed an offence in making spccilic charge,-, against your superior officer. Captain Knyvett : I say that “ unexampled officialism" is a most _ complimentary phrase. If an officer is -doing his duty, to say “unexampled officialism " is"a most flattering phrase. President: The Court rule that the words " unexampled officialism ’ ate an offence, and that the charge discloses an offence. - The fourth charge was stating in the letter to the Minister: I have documents in my possession which, if published, would have created a grave scandal in volunteering throughout the whole Dominion.

It was contended by Captain Knyvett that there was no crime in having such documents in his possession, so long as he came bv them honestly. There was nothing said here about Colonel Robin : it was the department that was aimed at, and. being impersonal, he submitted that in relation thereto there was no justilk-atiou for his arrest. He pressed the Court- for a decision on the point, and after conferring in private they upheld the objection to charge 4, and referred it to the convening officer I Captain Soddon), who could amend it or throw it out altogether. On_ the Court resuming next day* Captain Knyvett wgs attended by “a liiend.” in the person of Lieutenant Pullen, while Lieutenant Greenhough assisted him as shorthand writer. It was then announced that the convening officer had decided to take tio further action in regard to charge 4. At a later stage of Hie proceedings Lieutenant Pullen passed a written note to Captain Knyvett, and the Court demanded its production. President : Wc distinctly pointed out at the commencement, when you were allowed to sit at the table, that you were only allowed there on the distinct understanding that yon were not the prisoner’s “friend,” and that von were not to make suggestions. Now, you have handed him a suggestion, which the Court hold to ho contempt of court. The Court have decided to exclude yon from the room. Lieutenant Pullen: Have I not the right of the general public to sit at the back? President: You are excluded from the room. Lieutenant Pullen.- Then I have not the right of an ordinary British subject I President; Leave tho room. Lieutenant, Pullen thereupon left tho room, the president giving orders that ho was not to he admitted again, and on Lieutenant Grcenliough speaking to Captain Knyvett lie was cautioned that he would be ordered out next, and was ordered to join the reporters of the Press at their table. “ I hope this will be the last of this," added the president. Reverting to the third charge, Captain Knyvett claimed that the Court must compel the attendance of Colonel Robin, so that he might have tho opportunity of examining him ns to the truth or otherwise of his communications to the Wellington papers.

President: I don't see how that affects the question. What the paper reports does not establish the fact that Colonel Robin said so. Captain Knyvett: It is only backing it up. The Court will only allow you to call evidence to exonerate yourself, and not with a desire to bring anyone else into trouble. I want to show that the want of tact and interference on the part of the Chief of the General .Staff brought this about. We don't want yon to show it. . . . 1 will not hear long rigmaroles about interviews. You wrote a letter asking for the redress of grievances. Exception has been taken to statements made by you. In all these accusationsThcv arc not accusations I will have no more of this quibbling. We are Do 1 understand that the Court do not w;jnt the truth? We are not going to try the other ease; we are trying yours. You admit the letter. Exception has been taken to the charges in your letter, which any military man knows may or may not bo made. Having admitted the letter, you have got to show that you were justified in making these statements, in so far as that you honestly believed them to bo true when you wrote them, and that they were written only with the intention of getting redress, and nothing beyond that. . . . We are prepared to ' call witnesses whom' you can show can give relevant evidence. That is what I wish to show, but you won’t hear me. But we are not trying “want of tact.” You are trying me for saying it. You can put that in evidence—that you had reason to believe that this charge was right, and that it was relevant to your claim to exonerate yourself. That is as good evidence as' Colonel Robin would be. I only wish to d«k him questions which are totally relevant. But though Captain Knyvett was insistent he was unsuccessful. lie made a demand also for the summoning of Colonel Smythe, Colonel Bauchop, the Chief Staff Officer, Captain Chesney, Captain Nicholson (of Te Kuiti), Colonel Wolfe, Colonel Holgate, Major Hazard, Captains Kay, Dawson, Richardson, Shera, and Archibald, Lieutenant Greenhough, Surgeon-captain Murray, Staff Sergeant-major Cheator, Staff Sergeant-major Bell, Staff-sergeant Atwell, Color-sergeant Mackerras, and Stall' Ser-geant-major Carter. But the Court ruled adversely, holding that they had no power to summon witnesses from a distance. Captain Knyvett: But you must. The Act says that I can bring them for 200 miles, and if the Court wish for justice and truth I respectfully submit they can call - him (Colonel Robin). . . The whole text of his evidence is to exonerate myself. I can show that everything was done to discourage me personally—not only myself, but other people. But you cannot do that. .May I warn you now that any further desire on your part to try and proua i/oitr rhimjtg in this case will tend to make the Court think that the chargee preferred against you are true. A little later Captain Knyvett pressed for the production of all the witnesses required by him who resided in the Auckland district, and ui the Court declining to permit him to discuss the “ charges ” seriatim he refused to call any evidence. If you refuse to call evidence there will bo nothing left for the Court but to close their proceedings and give their report. It seems to me that the Court desire that. The Court do not desire that, bus they will not bo kept quibbling. I am here to defend myself in .a reasonable way. It is the Court who are quibbling. You won’t lot mo go through with my case. ... The position is this: You have admitted the letter, and in that letter you make certain charges against your superior officer, which fact is a military crime unless you can prove privilege. Now, the Court will explain to you that these accusations may bo privileged, but only to this extent: that they

are relevant to your claim to exonerate' yourself, and that you bona tide believed them, ft docs not matter whether thev are true or not, only whether you made them falsely and maliciously. Accepting the ruling of the Court, Captain Knyvett took the witness stand and gave evidence on oath, ihc outstanding feature of his evidence was the firmness with which he expressed his conviction, his honest belief that his charges were true. “I am as satisfied now as when 1 made that charge. ... I wrote my letter in all good faith and truth—not so much as a grievance against a superior, but rather to <*et an explanation ns (o'*what I believed myself.” Matters appear to have proceeded pretty regularly until the Court made a demand for the production of the names of the witnesses Captain Knvvett intended to call in support of his third charge. ... , Are you prepared to give the names.— I refuse. Many of the officers concerned are in Government billets, and if I gave their names they might suffer. Are you prepared to give the names of any officers? —I refuse to give names, but I am prepared to call evidence. Are vou prepared to give the name of any officer who so approached you?— Certainly not. I think it most unfair to ask me. ’ I refuse to answer the question, but j desire to -call evidence in support of what I say. ' ■.,«l r dur evidence can only be who were the. officers who' so ' approached tom.— -ill I' give "you' 'the ..-names, each'officer might he regarded'as having a personal spite against Colonel Robin, which would be roanjfestly unfair. I hare given you a list of witnesses. You may that these'are the witnesses. After a good deal of wrangling the question was put in this modified form : Are you prepared to give the names of the officers who eo approached you? Whereupon Captain Knyvett answered

affirmatively, and supplied those of Captain Dawson (commanding the College Rifles),. Captain Shcra (commanding the Auckland Engineers), and Color-sergeant Mackerras as the witnesses he desired to examine immediately. Captain Dawson (who was not allowed to relate his own experiences of “unwarranted interference ” on the part of the Chief of Staff) said : We were all very upset over what occurred at Auckland, and I, among others, saw Captain Knyvett. lie told me what had happened at Wellington, and I told him that I had grievances against the Chief of General Staff—complaints of interference, or what I considered to oe interference. Similar evidence was volunteered by Captain Shcra and Sergeant Mackerras, but norther was permitted to relate particulars of the individual incidents. Captain Knyvett : I want the Court to ask Color-sergeant Maekerras if ho approached me since my return from Wellington, and gave me an instance of unwarrantable interference by Colonel Robin. Piesidenl: The answer must bo“Yes'’ or “ No.' 1 Witness: Yes. Just before adjourning for the day Capinin Knyvett asked the Court to decide whether" or not sufficient testimony had been adduced to exculpate him from the third charge. President ; It is quite sufficient to establish tiro truth of your statement that von have been approached. That \s the last charge. There is no necessity, then, to call any further witnesses? It is quite sufficient to establish the hath of vonr statement. It is connected with your grievance. Your witnesses support, vonr statement. That would exonerate me, would it not ? . ~ The Court can only report on it. The Court cannot give a decision ns to whether they consider yon have brought sufficient evidence to establish the truth oi vonr statement. i The Court have already done that. I The Court are perfectly satisfed with your statement. But next day when the Court resumed there were interesting and unexpected developments, of which more anon.