Ostler, Comrade Appear Before Appeal Court

Northern Advocate, 17 March 1941, Page 2

Ostler, Comrade Appear Before Appeal Court

{Per Press Association. Copyright T WELLINGTON, This Day.

The appeals of Harold Alexander Cstler and Travers Burnell Christopher Christie from the conviction recorded against them at Christchurch on February 13, of attempting to publish a subversive statement and the sentence of 12 months’ hard labour imposed by Mr Justice Northcroft on each of them were commenced in the Court of Appeal today. The case stated and submitted to the Court of Appeal by Mr Justice Northcroft discloses that at the trial the prisoners objected to the indictment, so far as the charges on which they were convicted were concerned, in that the consent of the AttorneyGeneral, which was given to the prosecution on October 10, 1940, did not extend to that particular charge. Grounds Stated. Further, they objected that the information which was laid before the written consent of the AttorneyGeneral was, in fact, obtained, and finally that the indictment did not state the subversive statements intended to be relied on by the Crown. The case stated asks for the opinion of the Court of Appeal on these objections. When the case was called the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) said there were two matters before the court — matters raised by Mr. Justice Northcroft pertaining to the conviction itself and the application by the prisoners for leave to appeal from the sentences imposed on them. The Chief Justice called on the prisoners to present their case. Had Not Seen Passages. Ostler raised the question of the correctness of the case stated, which in paragraph six states: “Mr. Donnelly stated further that he relied on the paper as a whole. He said he indicated to the solicitors for the prisoners certain passages of a newspaper to which he proposed at the trial to draw special attention. These statements of Mr. Donnelly were not challenged in any way by the prisoners.” Ostler objected to this statement, alleging that Mr. Donnelly had not, in fact, made this alleged statement at the trial and could not have done so, as neither they nor their solicitors had at any time prior to the trial had pointed out to them passages on which the Crown relied. Ostler alleged it was not till Mr. Donnelly addressed the jury that ' they knew parts of the newspaper on which the Crown was basing its charges. The court, after some discussion, noted the objection. Ostler Application Refused Ostler also asked leave to call further evidence with the intention of proving that the Feople’s Voice had never been declared by the authorities subversive or illegal. The court refused to permit further evidence to be called. Christie then commenced , to address the court on points raised in the case on appeal. (Proceeding).