SUPPLIES OF SUGAR

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 December 1945, Page 3

SUPPLIES OF SUGAR

' CHARGES WITHDRAWN NEW PLYMOUTH, Dec. 5. On the application of the Crown so--1 licitor, Mr. R. H. Quilliam, charges alleging breaches of the Rationing Emergency Regulations, 1942, brought against the Farmers’ Co-operative Organisation Society of New Zealand,. Ltd., and Eric Randolph Wray, an 1 employee of the company, were withI drawn, by leave in the Magistrate’s I Court, before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., at Hawera to-day. The firm and Wray were each charged, on five counts, of supplying a total of 3,150 lb. of sugar, other than in accordance with the regulations, under Section 65 of the Justives of the Peace Act. Mr. Quilliam said he was instructed to apply for leave to withdraw all of the information. He appreciated that, in many circumstances, and particularly in such circumstances as these, where there had been a great deal of publicity, it was necessary to satisfy the Magistrate that the criminal law had not been improperly invoked, and that the application for withdrawal did not arise through any interference with the true course of justice. The monthly statements of the company between March and October 1944/ he said, showed deficiencies in its stocks. Inquiries were instituted, and Mr. Wray, manager of the grocery department, made a statement in writing, in which he admitted that, during that period, he had supplied sugar to customers in contravention of the regulations. He admitted that 'he had supplied sugar without receiving coupons, or a permit from the Controller. There were other admissions.

Mr. P. A. McCarthy (for Wray): I do not think that Mr. Quilliam is entitled to make a statement of admission, if an admission is not before the Court. The Magistrate: If the informations are Io be withdrawn, they should not be in an atmosphere that will leave a stigma against the defendants. ’ Mr. Quilliam: There has been a great deal of publicity, and it is known that an admission was made. In those circumstances, it is a most serious matter for the public to think that nothing is to be done, and this should be explained before you deal with the application to withdraw.. Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., had stated that the withdrawal of the information might give rise to a suggestion that the law had been improperly invoked, or that there had been interference with the true course of justice, said Mr. Quilliam. It was necessary for the Magistrate to know that the application was proper. The Magistrate: It occurred to me that these admissions might have been slurred over. It should have been sufficient to say that, in consequence of something, these proceedings had been taken without going into details. Pointing out reasons that had persuaded him to take the view that the informations should be withdrawn, Mr. Quilliam drew attention to the fact that the offences were alleged to have been committed on no specific dates mentioned. There was no evidence available on the admissions which supported charges in respect of any particular time of the months. It would be dangerous to convict on a general admission. The same applied to admissions by customers, which were general, and did not refer to a particular time. A feature of importance was that, not until August, 1944, was an amendment made to the regulations dealing with aiding and abetting, which brought the company into the charges. In view of the weakness of the form of admissions made, the proper course was to ask for the informations to be withdrawn. The public consider the regulations impotent. There was no improper motive in the application, and it was with a full sense of responsibility that it was sought. Mr. McCarthy said that he wished to protest emphatically at the course taken by the Crown. If it should be necessary to give an explanation of why a withdrawal was sought, the Crown was not entitled to make that explanation in a way in which some stigma would be attached to the defendants. It appeared that the Crown had come with a long explanation to cover up its own laxity in l the past. The Crown had opportunities, months ago, to consider that the public should not gain a wrong impression, it should have employed a counsel then. It was wrong for the Crown to say in effect “We are right de facto, but wrong in law.”