Magistrate Dismisses Strike Case Against Wellington Newspaper

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 March 1948, Page 5

Magistrate Dismisses Strike Case Against Wellington Newspaper

(P.A.) . WELLINGTON, This Day. “I think it would be a strange thing, indeed, if the newspapers were restricted in giving what I think is a fair report on the news of this business, or restricted in the proper, free expression of their opinion.”

These comments were made by Mr A. M. Goulding, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court today, when dismissing charges of inciting and encouraging a strike, brought, against Blundell Brothers, Ltd, and against the publishers of the Evening Post, Henry Percy Fabian Blundell, Leonard Coker Blundell, and Ernest Albert Blundell.

The charges were brought by the Inspector of Factories as the result of an article headed “Compulsory Meeting,” dealing with the holding of a stop-work meeting of the city and Hutt branches of the Wellington Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Union, appearing in the Post on February 16. Most of the argument in court centred around the heading and opening phrases: “It will be compulsory for the members of the City and Hutt branches of the Wellington Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Union to attend the special stop-work meeting tomorrow. . . .’’

Magistrate's Comment

“The Post is quite properly putting before the public its viewpoint and the Government viewpoint, and I believe the employees’ viewpoint, of the whole situation,” said the Magistrate. “I don't think it is proper for a prosecution of this type to select a small sentence, such as has been selected, as a basis of these charges and not look into the text in which it occurs, ami then say that the sentence is very indefinite, it is an, incitement or encouragement to men to strike and io attend this stop-work meet-

mi was known there had been a decision to stop work and the members of the union had received circulars, in which it. was intimated that the attendance of every member was demanded. It was known that the .altitude of the Government was opposed to the meeting; the newspapers reported the Government’s action and the Government’s attitude over Hie inalter, following it almost immediately below with the publication of the statement complained of. -Tf-was impossible to read the headline and separate it from the rest of the article and say that the words used would incite and urge men to attend the meeting, and that it-.was coiYtpniuory to attend tlie meeting, . said Mr Goulding. “A good deal of other information was •» contained below that."

“Not an Incitement”

On comparing the report in the Post with that in the Southern Cross on the following morning, he added, it vxis impossible or ridiculous to suggest that any carpenter or any other mon reading the whole of the news of the building trouble would conclude that the Post or the Southern Cross were inciting or urging men to attend the meeting or doing anything which would in any way compel the men to do so. “That is my view on reading the article, and I think the prosecution has failed to establish that this article was an incitement.” said Mr Goulding. Prosecution’s Submission Mr W. R. Birks, prosecuting, said LhM the charges were laid under the provisions of the Strike and Lock-out Emergency Regulations, 1939. Toe prosecution contended that the meeting was a strike witlpn the meaning of the regulations. . The prosecution further claimed that the heading of the article and the material in the first three paragraphs must, in the ordinary course, have had the effect of encouraging, if not of inciting, members of the union to attend the stop-work meeting. The article did not purport to be°a report of the calling of a meeting by some other body; it was not a second-hand report in any way- U was not qualified in any way, but was a straightforward statement that it was compulsory for members to attend. In his submission it was something more than mere news.