LAW PRECLUDES BAIL

Evening Star, Issue 23833, 13 March 1941, Page 4

LAW PRECLUDES BAIL

THE OSTLER-CHRISTIE CASE FACILITIES TO PREPARE APPEAL ARGUMENT [Per United Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, March 12. Legal difficulties in the way of granting release on bail so that they might prepare their case for the Court of Appeal hearing on Monday were explained to Harold Alexander Ostler and Travers Burnell Christopher Christie by Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court to-day. Ostler and Christie, who were each sentenced to 12 months in gaol on February 18 for attempting to publish a subversive statement, made their application at a special sitting of the court.

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. T. Donnelly) told His Honour that he had previously pointed out the difficulties that had arisen. The prisoners wished to conduct their own case in the Court of Appeal, and the Crown was anxious that they should have the fullest facilities for doing so. It if were possible to agree to the application for bail, the Attorney-General, Hon. H. G. R. Mason, would do so. Under the emergency regulations, to which attention had been drawn, there was no power to grant bail. “ May I point out,” Mr Donnelly said, “ that this is not an application by the Crown, but by the prisoners. The course I suggest would be one _of three. If the prisoners disagree with my opinion that there is no power for the court to grant bail, I am quite prepared for them to stand down and hear argument later. The application could thus be stood over till this afternoon or the morning. . The only other course is to supply the prisoners with every facility to prepare their case either in Christchurch or in Wellington, and if in Wellington, to send them there to-night.” The Crown, he added, was not objecting to bail. Ostler said that he was surprised by Mr Donnelly’s statement. He was under the impression that, the AttorneyGeneral had given his consent. His Honour; There is nothing in the nature of a consent before me.

Mr Donnelly: The Attorney-General would he willing to consider consent if he had the power, but he has not got

His Honour explained the difficulties. Under section 442 of the Crimes Act, he said, the machinery for passing a case from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal was prescribed. The Supreme Court might, at its discretion, either pass sentence and respite it at once or postpone sentence, or in either case allow bail, but in the case of Brown v. the Attorney-General it had been held that when the function of the court was finished' it no longer had the power to respite sentence.

His Honour said his attention had been drawn to the Emergency Regulations. No consent to bail had been received from the Attorney-General at the time of the trial, and the prisoners were before him at a time when, in his opinion, and subject to argument, he had no power to grant the application. It might .bo in the power of the Attorney-General to do so, and he would express no opinion on the language of the 'dahse, but consent now could not be a direction to the court, which, of course, could not take directions from,.the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General might have the power, continued His Honour, to direct the superintendent of prisons, but that was a function that could bo performed outside the court. The court could not be directed by the Attorney-General to do something which the Statute prohibited.

“ Our only hope, then, of obtaining release is by direction of the Minister in Charge of Prisons to the superintendent of the gaol?” Ostler asked. His Honour: The Attornev-General is the only person who can direct.

His Honour added that his opinions were not absolute and were subject to review.

Ostler said they would prefer an adjournment till the afternoon. He asked the judge to make available the newspaper reporters’ notes, so that he and Christie might study his contentions. “No doubt the reporters would be helpful, but I cannot control them,” replied His Honour. The case was then adjourned till 2.15 p.m. to enable the prisoners to confer with the registrar on the points raised. His Honour directed that the prisoners should be held in custody in town.

During the adjournment an application was made on behalf of the prisoners to the Crown Law Office, Wellington, for release on parole under the Prisons Act.

Mr Donnelly said; “ I am authorised to say that, though there is no power to grant bail or release on parole, facilities may be given them to consult documents or advisers as may be necessary for the preparation of their appeal.” “ I am concerned only with the application for bail, which must be refused,” said His Honour. “ What happens now is a matter not for this court, but for those who hold you in lawful custody.” Ostler asked for an adjournment till next day to await a reply to the application for release. Mr Justice Northcroft: You have already had your reply in Mr Donnelly’s address.

The Attorney-General has replied to Ostler’s request that a Royal Commis-sion-be set up to investigate the allegations made in the Supreme Court and the procedure of the police in gathering evidence for the trial. Mr Mason’s letter says: ‘‘ With further reference to your letter of February 17 and the Prime Minister’s acknowledgment thereof dated February 27 in relation to yonr application for the immediate sotting up of a Royal Commission in connection with' your case, I have to inform you that it lias been decided that yonr request bo declined.—Yours faithfully, H. G. R Mason, Attorney-General.”