CENSORSHIP ISSUE

Grey River Argus, 29 April 1944, Page 5

CENSORSHIP ISSUE

CHARGE AGAINST PAPERS Defence Challenges Regulations fAust & N.Z. Press Assn.] (Rec. 1210*a m.) SYDNEY, April 28. The hearing of the prosecution of the Consolidated Press Co., publisheis of the “Daily Telegraph” ana ‘ Sunday Telegraph” for alleged censorsmp breaches, was interrupted to-day. This was to enable counsel for the deience to challenge, in the. Supreme Court, jthe admissability. or questions put to the Chief Censor regarding his general duties. „ ~ ~ Mr. Weston K.C., for the Consol - dated Press Co., contended that such questions were irrevalent to the issue before the Court. He secured an announcement to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court, however, Mr. Justice Haise Rogers, refused Mr, Weston’s application to restrain the Magistrate from admitting the evidonee. The Censorship Orders which are alleged’ to have been infringed sec out that no newspaper may pubhsn matter that, has been ordered to be deleted b v the Censor, and may not leave any blank spaces or indicate in any other way that the Censoi haj ordered omissions. Mr. Sugerman, K.C., for. the Commonwealth Government, said that the powers thus granted to the Censor were wide, but the censorship would not. work unless the Censor was made the final arbiter of what , was or was not censorable. The Magistrate must have regard to all of the circumstances and the reasons which actuated the Censor. The evidence would show that these were proper acts of discretion, and were not improperly influenced by any consideration which the Censor should not have taken into account.

Mr. Weston, in reply, said that what the Censor thought or. did not think, and what activated him, was irrevel&nt to the validity of the clauses under which the prosecutions were brought. The defence contended that these clauses were invalid, on the ground that powers given by them were too wide.

Earlier, Mr. Cassidy, K.C., appearing for the Consolidated Press Co., said that an examination of the association between the Minister of Information, Hon. Mr. Calwell, and the Chief Censor, Mr. B. Bonney,, was a matter for a Royal Commission, and not for the Court, which was concerned with a limited issue. He said that, the real legal issue would be whether- the Censorship Regulations were ultra vires of the National Security Act. OPPOSITION DEMAND REFUSED. (Rec. 1.5.) CANBERRA, April 2.8. The Acting-Prime Minister, Hon. F. M. Forde, declared to-dav that the Government would not- withdraw the Minister for Information. Hon Mr. Calwell, from the Censorship Committee of the House of Representatives. Mr. Forde’s statement follows the demands from the Opposition that Mr. Calwell should be removed from the committee. “This demand will not be acceded to,” Mr. Forde said. “Mr. Calwell was appointed, with the others of the Committee, bv the Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin, after consultation with the Opposition Leader, Mr Menzies, and the Country Party Leader. Mr, Fadden.”