SUBVERSION CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 February 1941, Page 4

SUBVERSION CASE

ALLEGATIONS BY OSTLER. SOLICITOR-GENERAL’S DENIAL 1 ' [PER press association.] CHRISTCHURCH, February 17. Because he was the son of a Supreme Court Judge, the SolicitorGeneral (Mr. Cornish) did not wish to prosecute him, and offered him a way out, declared Harold Alexander Ostler, addressing the jury in the Supreme Court in his own defence, to charges of subversive activities. Ostler was later found guilty, and the case was adjourned till to-day. A denial that Ostler had had from him any offer of privileged treatment, was contained in a statement made by the Solicitor-General, which the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Donnelly) read, when the case was resumed this morning for consideration of the points raised on appeal by Ostler. The Solicitor-General’s statement admitted that he met Ostler in Christchurch, to have a friendly talk, as he had known the young man from the time he was a boy. Mr. Cornish declared that he acted purely in his private capacity, and as a friend, and that he tried to persuade Ostler to a different way of thinking on general affairs, especially in relation to the war.

Ostler declared, in his address to the jury, that he need not have stood his trial. He said that the SolicitorGeneral wrote and asked him to meet him at the railway station, when Mr. Cornish was arriving- from Dunedin. They went to the Canterbury Club, where, in a private room, Mr. Cornish told him that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and he himself were willing to drop prosecution, but certain people were talking, and it was going to be almost impossible to avoid it.

“I asked if those who were talking or pressing for prosecution were those members of the Cabinet whom my father, Justice Ostler, prosecuted during the last war,” continued Mr. Ostler. “Mr. Cornish avoided answering that question, but suggested that the best way for me to avoid prosecution was to join the army. Voluntary enlistment in the army had then ceased, but Mr. Cornish told me that the Government would put me in, and even place me in a nice safe, comfortable job. It was offering me a pardon or indemnity if I joined up, though Chief Justice Myers has condemned such illegal indemnities very strorigly. The same offer was not made to Christie. Whether I chose to sink or swim, Christie must sink, because he was the secretary of the Communist Party for Canterbury and the West Coast, and he had no high-class connections or influential friends, but I was the son of Sir Hubert Ostler, a Judge.;jjof the High Court of Appeal. I telf you this to show you that, in practice, there is one law for the poor and another for persons with friends in high places. I was the son of a Supreme Court Judge.”

Referring in his summing up to these statements by Ostler, Mr. Justice Northcroft said that the Court had been treated to certain assertions against persons in high places, but they were not given on oath and the Court had no means of ascertaining whether they were true or untrue. In either case they should have no bearing on the jury’s decision. “I think it may not be improper for me to say that they were made not by.a man who wanted you to believe them, but by a man prepared to exalt himself by dragging his father’s name unnecessarily and gratuitously into these proceedings,” added the Judge. “I do not say this to prejudice you against Ostler. You will remember that I warned him earlier, when he made a gratuitous reference to his father, of the danger he was running of prejudicing himself, but whether he is a desirable or undesirable person has no bearing on whether he is guilty or not.”

MR. CORNISH’S STATEMENT. “I wish to make an application arising from the statement about the interview with the Solicitor-General,” said the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Donnelly), after Mr. Justice Northcroft had dealt with Ostler’s appeal, this morning. “Ostler’s statement will be published to-day, and a copy has been submitted to the Solicitor-Gen-eral. The Solicitor-General has supplied me with his account of the interview, and I ask for permission to read his statement, so that it will be read in the same place and will have the' same publication as Ostler’s statement.”

Mr. Donnelly read the statement, as follows: “H. A. Ostler’s statement, that he had from me, acting with the approval of the Prime Minister and of Attorney-General, any offer of privileged treatment, is untrue. (1) I did not have at any time, either from the Prime Minister or the Attorney-Gen-eral, any authority, either express or implied, to stop or delay the proceedings against Ostler, or even to discuss with him the possibility of any such course being followed, oh any condition or conditions whatsoever. (2)1 did not hold myself out to jOstler as having any such authority. (3) I did not tell Ostler that either the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General was willing to drop the prosecution against him. (4) I did not suggest to Ostler ‘that the best way for him to avoid prosecution ' was to join the army,’ nor did I promise him that if he did so he would be given ‘a nice, safe, comfortable job.’ (5) It is true I did see Ostler in Christchurch, towards the end of last year. The facts which explain how I came to do so are briefly these: He had been known to me ever since he was a boy. I knew him first as a pupil at the school of which I had once been the headmaster, and in which for various reasons I had > continued to take an especial interest. Later on, I followed with interest his college career, which was excellent both in study and sport, and gave promise of future usefulness and distinction. Subsequently, I knew that he had gone to England, and there received training in the Royal Air Force. It was, therefore, a matter of regret for me to learn that a young man of such ability and attainments was following a of conduct which must, if persisted in, lead to his own unhappiness, as well as to the hurt of the community, so I decided, entirely on my own responsibility and without reference to the Prime Minister or the Attorney-Gen- . eral or anyone else, to have a friend- | ly talk with him the next time I passed through Christchurch. I hoped that such a talk from a much-older man, whose goodwill he could not

question, might perhaps induce him to break away from his subversive associations. At my meeting with Ostler, in order to avoid raising any false hopes in his mind, I made it clear to him that I was acting in purely a private capacity and as a friend. I told him, also, that I could make no promises in respect of what had already happened, or any action which might be, taken, in consequence of it. In the course of our conversation, I tried to persuade him to a different way of thinking on general affairs, especially in relation to the war. I also asked him to consider’ whether it would not be a right, as well as a wise course, for him, with his advantages and future prospects, to put aside all his doubts in a time of national crisis, and by joining up take an action which would help his country. I expressed my belief taht this would do much to show repudiation by him of any disloyal intention, and I added that this would be a circumstance which the Court might properly take into consideration.”

POINTS FOR APPEAL. CHRISTCHURCH, February 17. The three questions raised at the start of the trial by Ostler would be referred to the Court of Appeal, said Mr. Justice Northcroft, in the Supreme Court this morning, after hearing the points formulated by Harold Alexander Ostler as grounds for appeal on behalf of himself and Travers Burnell Christopher Christie. Both prisoners were found guilty last week of attempting to publish a subversive statement, and the case was adjourned to this morning, to allow Ostler time to formulate his objections to the Judge’s summing up. The Judge added that he did not propose to refer the points on which misdirection was alleged to the Court of Appeal, although it was open for Ostler to ask that Court to consider the questions he had raised.

| The three points raised by Ostler at the start of the trial were as to whether the consent of the AttorneyGeneral, which appeared on the information, justified the second, third, and fourth counts on the indictment; a submission that the date of consent of the Attorney-General preceded the date of the information, and therefore was not consent to the information, because at the date of consent the information was not in being; and a further submission, that no passage from any of the documents was quoted as subversive.

maximum sentences. TWELVE MONTHS’ HARD LABOUR CHRISTCHURCH, February 18. Twelve months’' hard labour was . imposed on Harold Alexander Ostler and Travers Burnell Christopher ' Christie, who appeared before Mr I Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court, to-day, for sentence on charges of attempting to publish a subversive statement. “The country is engaged in the most-serious war in its history,” said the Judge. “Its political .and social arrangements may not be satisfactory to any of us, but at least we have the means of obtaining an orderly improvement to both. The loss of this war would deprive us of many benefits we enjoy, and would reducems to slavery, so that we would lose the liberty of proceeding to any further improvement of our social and econ-

omic conditions. It is while we are under the shadow of this terrible danger that you indulge in your fatuous attempts to interfere with our war effort. With clear deliberation and purpose, you have both elected to defy the law against subversion. The maximum punishment is twelve months’ hard labour, for which reason alone I sentence you both to imprisonment with hard labour for that period.”