THE KNYVETT CASE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9135, 7 February 1910, Page 3

THE KNYVETT CASE.

REVIEWED BY CABINET. "NO RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE."

i Consideration of the case of exCaptain Knyvett, of A Auckland Division, Auckland Garrison Artillery, has been concluded by Cabinet, whose decision was made public on Saturday afternoon. A full statement of the position has been sent to the chairman of the Knyvett Defence Committee at Auckland, a' deputation from which waited on ' the Prime Minister on 20tli January and pointed out that the evidence taken on the first day of the enquiry by the board had not been placed before the Adju-tant-General (Col Tuson), on whose recommendation Captain Knyvett was dismissed from the service. In communicating with the Adjutant-Gen-eral on the subject the Prime Minis- I ter said — •

"I also send you a copy of the evidence which the deputation declared had been taken by a court shorthand writer and certified to by him to them as, Correct, in which evidence they pointed out. that the president of the court is alleged to have stopped Captain Knyvett from calling witnesses upon the ground that the court was satisfied that it was unnecessary, and from this Captain Knyvett is alleged to have concluded that the charges against him were not proven, and it was unnecessary for him to j proceed further."

That memorandum was forwarded by the Adjutant-General to the President of the Board of Enquiry, asking for information on the following points:—(l) Whether the evidence itcorded by the court and on which I have made my recommendation to the Government was complete. . (2) Whether you, as President <.f the Court, stopped Captain Knyvett from calling further evidence on ground that it was considered unnecessary and from which Captain Knyvett is alleged to have concluded that the charges against him were not proven, and it was unnecessary for him to proceed further. QUESTIONS AND RULINGS.

In the course of its consequent report. the board stated that no evidence 011 oath was taken during the first day of the enquiry; the proceedings dealt almost entirely with points raised by the accused as to privilege, objections tq the' charges against him, and with his right to be assisted by counsel or a friend. The court deliberated from time to time on the various objections raised by the accused, and recorded them as well as its ruling, on the proceedings previously submitted. The questions and the answers given on oath by accused and his witnesses were recorded in the proceedings. The evidence of each witness was subsequently read over to him, and each witness agreed that the record of his evidence was correct. The president did not stop the accused from callyig- further evidence. The court explained to the accused that any evidence produced by him must be relevant to the charges against himself; also, that the court was not concerned with the truth or untruth of the allegations against the Chief of the General Staff ; and that consequently' no evidence in support of them would be admitted. The accused stated on oath that he honestly believed the newspaper articles commenting 011 his company's visit to Wellington, correctly reported the views expressed by Colonel Robin regarding it that .these articles completely spoiled his undertaking, and that they belittled him before his men and the public. The accused swore that he was not actuated by malice in writing the letter, which is the subject of this enquiry. He also brought witnesses in support of his statement that he had been approached by other officers who considered they had suffered from unwarranted interference on the part of the Chief of the General Staff. After this evidence, as recorded in the proceedings, was given, the court informed the, accused that it was unnecessary to 'produce further cyidence of a similar nature., The court did not make any statement which could have justified the accused in concluding that the charges against him were hot proven. On receipt of that report the Adju-' tant-General forwarded it to the Prime Minister, with a suggestion that it should be submitted to the Solicitor-General for his opinion on the following points;— (1) Whether ' Colonel Robin was a material witness, and, if so, whether the. court was justified in refusing to allow - his evidence on the ground of irrelevancy. (2) Whether the court was justified, from a legal point of view, in refusing to admit evidence in. support of the allegations against the Chief of the General Staff, as thereby the accused was unable to prove "provocation by a -superior."

THE COpUT JUSTIFIED. The opinion of' the Solicitor-Gen-eral, given on the Ist February, contained the following statement:—

"In particular I think that the Court was justified in refusing to hear the evidence of Colonel Robin and of the other witnesses whose evidence was rejected. It is evident from the report of the enquiry that Captain Knyvett's iritention in examining Colonel Robin and those other witnesses -was to prove the truth of the accusations made by him against thatofficer. This issue was, however, as the court rightly pointed out, irrelevant to the enquiry. The question before the court was not whether thoise accusations were true or false, but whether in making them in the manner in. which they were made (and irrespective of their truth or. falsehood) Captain Knyvett was guilty of an offence against military discipline which justified his dismissal. I am of opinion tjjat the evidence is sufficient to justifv, as "a matter of law, the conclusion'that Captain Knyvett was guilty of 'insubordination' within the meaning of section 54 of the Defence Act, 1908. That term is wide enough to include any conduct on the part of an inferior which is inconsistent with his proper relation- of subordination to his superior officers, and includes, therefore, such an attack on the character and competence of Colonel Robin as was made in this case. Independently of section 54 of the Act, it would seem.that Captain Knyvett had also committed a breach of the regulations as to the discipline of the Defence Forces. (See Regulations >174 to 180.) These regulations prescribe the method in which aggrieved members of the Defence Forces are to bring their complaints to the notice of the authorities, and ..the prescribed method was not followed by Captairt Knyvett. "It is true that the charge formulated'for the Court of Enquiry does not specifically refer to section 54 of the. Act or to the Regulations, but I think that the defendant had sufficient notice of the nature of the offence with which he was charged and a sufficient opportunity of answering that charge."

The' opinion of the Attorney-Gen-eral was also taken upon the points raised, and he confirmed that of the Solicitor-General. DECISION ADHERED TO. The papers then went before Cabinet, which, ' after giving "the subject the fullest possible consideration, decided that it had no recommendation to make to His Excellency—in other words, "Cabinet decided to adhere to its former decision, and that the decision for Captain Knyvett's dismissal, must stand.

INDIGNATION IN AUCKLAND

CIVIL ACTION THREATENED. (Per Pbess Association.) AUCKLAND, Feb. 5. Interviewed in regard to the intimation that the Cabinet has reconsidered the. Knyvett case and has no recommendation to make, Mr J. S. Dickson, chairman of the Knyvett defence committee, said he was greatly surprised at the decision Cabinet had come to.

- "It is evident that the whole thing was a farce," said Mr Dickson, "and I will call a meeting "of the committee on Monday to lay the whole matter before our legal advisers. We intend to fight the matter to a finish, and will take it into the law courts. The Cabinet's decision comes as a thunderbolt not alone to me but, I am sure, Ito the Auckland public, and I feel now that Mr Knyvett has been more ( unjustly treated than ever. We asked that the opportunity of thrashing the matter out should be given in a new trial, and that request has been refused. It can now be taken for granted that the %vfrole of the facts will be adduced in the course of a civil action. ''