Newspaper Charged; Full Court Report

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 March 1948, Page 3

Newspaper Charged; Full Court Report

The following is the full report of the case in which the Evening Post was prosecuted. It was received after the Evening Star went to press yesterday:— , ' ' “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 were restricted in a proper free exression of their opinion.” This comment was made by Mr A. M. Goulding, S.MI, in the Magistrate’s Court at Wellington, 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." Basis Of Charge 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 Evening Post on February 16. Mr W. R. Birks, prosecuting, said the charges were laid under the provisions of the Strike and Lock-out Emergency Regulations, 1939. The prosecution contended that the meeting was a strike within 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. It 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.

Most of the argument in Court centred in the heading and opening phrases. “It will be compulsory for members of the City and Hutt branches of the Wellington Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Union to attend the special stop-work meeting tomorrow

Inspector's Evidence Thomas George Fielder, Inspector of Factories, said that there was no provision in the award, covering carpenters and joiners of the Wellington district, for holding a stop-work meeting during the hours of employment. Witness said that he did not know of any particular member of the union who attended the meeting and knew of nobody who went in consequence of the article in the Evening Post. Witness agreed that the report did not contain any reference to the time at which the meeting was to be held or the particular place at which it was to be held. Witness said that he was the officer of the department who decided whether or not informations would be laid under the regulations. That applied only up to a point. In matters of' national interest they were referred to the head office. Mr H. R. C. Wild (appearing for the Evening Post): Did you decide yourself in this particular matter? Witness: No. It was decided by the head office. Labour Daily’s Report Mr Wild produced the Wellington Labour Daily, the Southern Cross of February 17 and drew witness’s attention to a paragraph headed, “Carpenters to Meet Today,” and to a sentence in the paragraph, “Attendance will be compulsory.” Witness agreed that there was po difference between the sentence in the Southern Cross and the one complained of in the Evening Post excepting the wording. Mr Wild: Has any information been laid against the publishers of the Southern Cross? Witness: Not to my knowledge. Mr Wild: Have you laid one? Witness: No. “The Southern Cross may still have something in store for itself,” said the Magistrate with a smile. Detective N. J. McPhee gave evidence of being outside the theatre at which the union meeting was held. Members were admitted on production of union cards. He understood that circulars referring to the meeting had been circulated to substantiallv all the members. Mr Wild: Did you see anybody going to the meeting carrying a copy of the Evening Post?

Witness: No. The Magistrate: Or any other offensive weapon? (Laughter).

Mr Wild: I . was going to ask about the Southern Cross. i In the case for the defence Mr Wild said that he was going to refer brieffly to three matters of great concern 'to the defendants and indeed to" the public. The first was the deep concern of the defendants that" in any publication for which they were responsible they should be thought either knowingly or unknowingly or unwittingly to have broken the law. The second was the astonishment and amazement of defendants which should' be shared by the public, that the informant oi* any one else should interpret or ask the Court to interpret a news item in the. Evening Post as inciting or' encouraging the breaking of the law, or as being in any way I sympathetic to the cause of those I who broke the law. “Gilbertian Situation” “It is indeed a truly Gilbertian situation that the Evening Post, because of its endeavours to give the 'public full news of what has been I happening in this matter, should now kind itself prosecuted for the very offence that it has so strenuously en- ! deayoured to denounce and suppress, lit is contrary to common sense that a newspaper whose opposition to in- ! dustrial unrest has so constantly' been .made plain should be charged with j inciting and encouraging a strike, and ! I submit that on the grounds of com- ‘ mon sense alone these charges must fail?’

He would express the alarm the defendants and the general public would feel that a newspaper which, in his submission, had done nothing more than carry out its proper and traditional function of giving the public news of most urgent public interest should now be before the Court. “This prosecution', in my submission strikes at the very foundations of the freedom of the press,” he said. The Magistrate (Mr Goulding) then intimated that he had reached the conclusion that the prosecutions must fail. It seemed that no reasonable man could look upon the article as being an incitement or encouargement to stop work. Mr Birks said he must agree that he had failed on charges of inciting, but he maintained that on the charges of encouraging the strike the situation was different. A newspaper must be presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of its acts in publishing a statement. Magistrate’s Comments

i Even from a technical view alone, said Mr Goulding, he thought the I prosecutions must fail for the reasons ' advanced by Mr Wild. The Evening Post is quite properly , putting before the public its viewpoint and the Government viewpoint, and the employers’ 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 the basis of these charges and not look into the text in which it occurs, and then say that the sentence is very indefinite, it is an incite--1 ment, or encouragement to men to | strike and to attend this stop-work 1 meeting. I “It was known that there had been a decision to stop work and members 'of the union had received circulars iin which it was stated that the attendance of every member was de- ' manded.

“It was known that the attitude of the Government was opposed to the meeting; the newspaper reported the Government’s action, and the Government’s attitude over the matter, following it almost immediately below with publication of the statement complained of,” said Mr Goulding. It 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 compulsory to attend the meeting, said Mr Goulding. A good deal of other information was contained below that. On comparing thie report in the Evening Post with that in the Wellington Labour daily on the following morning, it was impossible or ridiculous to suggest that any carpenter or any other men reading the whole of the news of the building trouble would conclude that the Evening Post, or the Wellington Labour daily, were inciting or urging the men to attend a 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.