Undue Interference Denied By Crown: Six Submissions

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22850, 21 January 1949, Page 6

Undue Interference Denied By Crown: Six Submissions

(P.A.) WELLINGTON. Jan. 21. Representing the Crown in the inquiry into the alleged obstruction of the press at the Kaka crash, Mr. T. P. Cleary, referring to editorial comment, said that in the majority of cases this did not go beyond the limit of legitimate and temperate criticism, but in more than a few cases newspapers in the same breath marie gratuitous statements of facts that were misfouncled. There were accusations made against the head of the Government of hedging, evasion and untruthfulness. There were attacks on the head of the Government that information of the discovery of the wreckage had been concealed by the Minister. There were also allegations of "police state” methods and comparisons were drawn with dictatorships in Russia. “Extravagani Evidence”

The extravagance of the whole of the evidence had been adduced by the Crown or the Journalists' Association and no attempt had been made by any of these journals, so free with their allegations, to take advantage of the inquiry to make some independent observations to justify their allegations. Distasteful as it might be to the press, said Mr. Cleary, what it might like to claim as a right might only only turn out to be a discretionary privilege and courtesy, and the press might be deceiving itself in using highsounding phrases.

It would be sufficient for the chairman to consider if evidence showed that there was in truth and substance any material or unreasonable interference with the pressmen at Ruapehu. Mr. Cleary submitted six questions for consideration of the chairman. The first, he said, was whether the press was unreasonably impeded while the new control room was being set up on Tuesday, October 26. Counsel said that any complaint about this could be dismissed as there was only a temporary dislocation of six hours. It was an improvement which might have evoked a word of praise, but instead there had been criticism. Information for Next-of-Kin

The second question was whether the instruction of Thursday to differ announcements so as to permit notification of next-of-kin constituted or resulted in the improper withholding of information. Counsel submitted that all would agree with the propriety of this instruction but, nevertheless, it had been the subject of query and comment. The third question was whether news of the discovery of the wreckage was improperly withheld for some two hours. Mr. Cleary said that three men from tlie control room who were called as witnesses all gave evidence that' they regarded the 8.40 a.m. message as typical of many previously received as requiring further investigation. The Director of Civil Aviation only learnt of this message on a routine visit to the control room, and it was not specially reported to him. It was alleged that the Minister concealed -and deliberately withheld this message, but to this allegation could be applied the acid teset that the log showed that the first communication made to any Minister was not earlier than 10.16 a.m. when the Director of Civil Aviation undertook to notify the receipt of the report from the smaller sighting aircraft. Obviously, the Minister could not conceal what he did not know.

The fourth question was whether there was any direction or attempt to “channel” news through the Information Section of the Prime Minister’s Department. The evidence of C. H. Williams, who at that time was in charge of the section, disposed of that. No Such Evidence

The fifth question was whether any direction was given by any Minister or senior officer of any department as to the withholding of news from the press. Counsel submitted that the answer should be that there was no such evidence. Was the head of the Government alone not to display interest and anxiety as to the lot of the people in the aircraft, and was he alone not to be informed of news which was the subject of the allegations? Mr. Cleary said he agreed that it would have been more satisfactory if it had been possible to trace the origin of the message which had been passed on by the Deputy-Director of Civil Aviation. The closest inquiries had failed to connect the message with the Prime Minister’s Department to which it had been attributed by the DeputyDirector of Civil Aviation. Having reached Ohakune. the message was not passed on. An explanation of the message might be that it was a delayed version of one the previous day that the National Airways Corporation and the acting-Prime Minister were to be advised so that next-of-kin could be notified. '

The sixth question was whether there were any improper restrictions placed on the press at the plateau at Horopito or Karioi Counsel said it could not be challenged that such instructions as were given at those places were given on the individual responsibility of respective officers in charge. He suggested that now the chairman had heard the evidence it might be found that a great deal of what happened might, be accounted for by an insistence on the one hand and brusqueness on the other.