TE AROHA RAID

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXII, Issue 12527, 12 April 1935, Page 4

TE AROHA RAID

SEQUEL Itt THE COURT. POLICE COMMISSIONER v. EDITOR. “FARMING FIRST” ARTICLE. An application by the Commissioner of Police, Mr. W. G. Wohlmann, for leave to prosecute the editor of “Farming.- First,” Albert Edward Robinson, for alleged defamatory libel was granted in the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, on Wednesday morning,by Mr E. Page, S.M. The application was in respect of an article relating to a police raid at Te Aroha, Quoting • the section of the Law of Libel Amendment Act under which the application was made, Mr. Treadwell said this set out that defamatory libel was matter published without legal justification or excuse, either designed to insult any person or likely to injure his reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or likely to injure him in his profession or trade. The libel now alleged was in an article on March 15 entitled “One Law for the Administration and Another for the People.” Exception was taken to the following parts of the article • “The men caught at Te Aroha were not poor men. They -were owners of racehorses, members of racing clubs, etc. A Minister of the Crown was in the room. Hence, the decision of the Commissioner of Police not to prosecute, we have no doubt whatever. But no laws worth while keeping will ever he passed while Ministers of the Crown assist in breaking them and are shielded in doing so by the machinery of justice.” COMMISSIONER’S AFFIDAVIT. An affidavit by the Commissioner was read stating that the offence alleged was not only so grave to him personally and in respect of his office, but he feared it might cause much alarm in the public mind with regard to the administration of the Police Department under his direction that the only effective remedy available was to prosecute Robinson. Mr. Treadwell contended that the article certainly intended to insult, and was liable to injure the Commissioner’s personal reputation and his reputation in his calling. Mr Robinson had not taken the opportunity of mitigating the charge. He could imagine no more fitting case for leave to prosecute being granted. Permission to cross-examine the Commissioner on his affidavit was asked for by Mr, Boys, and opposed bv Mr. Treadwell On several grounds. The magistrate said he did not think the matter's raised by Mr. Boys could properly be inquired into in the present proceedings, and he refused the applications. Mr. Boys submitted that the court was not at present concerned with Mr. Treadwell’s contention that there had been no retraction. He had, however, shown Mr. Treadwell an alteration in the article which had been prepared for publication. It was stated to Mr. Page that the alteration eliminated the allegation concerning the Minister of the Crown, Mr. Treadwell saying that this was not an apology to Mr. AVohlmann. In the opinion of Mr. Boys there was nothing in the article complained of which exposed •the Commissioner to public hatred, ridicule, or contempt, and that it did not injure him in his trade or profession. There was stronger ground for refusing leave than engaging a discussion on whether or not the words were defamatory. The libel alleged was not of the type to -warrant a departure from civil proceedings. An essential condtion precedent to the matter going to trial was that the alleged libel should involve a breach or the possibility of a breach of the peace, counsel continued. There was a. grave danger in placing a police officer in a difficult position from another person. He submitted that a Police Commissioner was amply pi’oteeted hv the civil remedies open to him. MAGISTRATE’S DECISION. The magistrate said that he did not propose to discuss the details of the article. It seemed to him-that a ease had been made out under Section 11, and he thought, therefore, that it was his duty to make an order giving the leave sought-. He reserved the question of costs. In reply to Mr. Boys, ho said it .appeared to him that he had no power to make any directions regarding tht place of trial. The place at which the ease was heard would have to be governed by the ordinary law.