THE GILCHRIST CASE

Evening Star, Issue 21821, 10 September 1934, Page 8

THE GILCHRIST CASE

MAGISTRATE UPHOLDS BY-LAWS NO RIGHT TO SPEAK WITHOUT PERMIT CONVICTED ON BOTH COUNTS John. Gilchrist was this morning convicted and fined £1 for delivering an address in a public street without a permit from the City Council, and convicted without penalty for causing an obstruction in the street. The hearing was resumed from Friday, when Mr 11. H. Simpson, for the defendant, attacked the validity of the by-law dealing with public speaking and held that it was void on the grounds that it was unreasonable. The facts were not seriously in dispute, said Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in his judgment this morning. The defendant applied for permission to deliver an address at the intersection of Upper Dowling street. This application was refused by the City Council, and a letter to that effect was sent to him. Pour days later, however, the defendant delivered a public address in Upper Dowling street, adjoining Princes street, persons to the number of several hundreds being present. After the address had been in progress for some time a constable requested the defendant to move on, as he was causing an obstruction. The defendant then moved across Princes street to Lower Dowling street. The defendant claimed that the bylaw on the question was void, in that it was unreasonable, continued the Magistrate. The arguments brought forward on his behalf, however, were somewhat vague and general. It was at first suggested that a doctrine called “ the right of free speech ” was in danger, but His Worship confessed that he was unable to appreciate what was meant by “ free speech.” Any person who, thinking such a right existed, attempted to exercise it would soon find out that unguarded expressions might render him liable to civil or criminal action. Free speech could not mean more than equal freedom •to all citizens to fully express themselves, provided they did not offend against the law. Defendant’s counsel agreed that all he claimed was equal opportunity. A municipal corporation was given ample powers to make by-laws concerning the use of streets within the municipality. Such .by-laws as these must, of course, be reasonable. The use of the streets was,_ primarily, that of passage of the public, and a reasonable extension had m modern times been made to the use of the highway in allowing public addresses. But, in allowing any extension, first _ object of the street must be kept in view. The local authority presumably knew the danger of congestion likely to occur in the streets if public addresses were to be allowed without careful restrictions and conditions. It had to consider whether the number of people likely to he attracted would ho large or small. A further consideration to be noted was whether the subject to be discussed was controversial or otherwise. In fact, there were a hundred and one considerations which the local authority in its wisdom must weigh, bearing in mind its paramount duty to the public to use the streets for passage. Streets were formed to walk on —not to talk in. His Worship thought that the by-law in question was quite reasonable. Its reasonableness was exemplified by what, occurred this evening, when, owing to the popularity of the defendant, a large crowd assembled in the public street on a busy shopping evening. A political meeting might he quiet and orderly, and at times the reverse. Noisy or quiet, however, its proper setting was a hall or some reserve. The defendant would be convicted and fined £1 and costs. Mr Simpson, who represented the defendant, mentioned the possibility of appeal, and said that this was dependent upon the decision in a similar case now under consideration in Auckland. Mr Bundle: Am Ito understand that there is a similar case in Auckland and that an appeal has been lodged there? Has a conviction been entered? Mr Simpson: Appeal has not yet been made, although security has been fixed. His Worship remarked that he had no desire to prejudice the defendant in any way. With reference to the charge of obstruction, the Magistrate said that ho must consider whether the use of the street on this occasion was a reasonable use. It had been stated, and not_ denied, that “ the time was a busy Friday evening, when an unusually largo number of people were using the streets.” The locality was adjacent to, and abutting on, the main street of Dunedin city, and there were a large number of persons intentionally addressed and, expressly or implied, invited to remain there by the defendant. People were, in His Worship’s opinion, clearly obstructing the street and interfering with the general body of citizens using it. They were so obstructing owing to the premeditated act of the defendant, who was guilty of wilful obstruction. ■His Worship added that ho did not propose to impose a penalty on this count provided that the defendant gave an undertaking that the offence would not occur again. Mr Gilchrist: I intend making application for permission again. Mr Bundle: I am not concerned with that. Are you prepared to give an undertaking that it won’t occur again? Mr Gilchrist: Yes. I’ll give that undertaking. Mr Bundle; Very well, you will be convicted without penalty, and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within twelve months. ,