ALLEGED SEDITIOUS UTTERANCES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16964, 28 March 1917, Page 5

ALLEGED SEDITIOUS UTTERANCES.

APPEALS BEFORE FULL COURT.

CASE FOR THE APPELLANTS

(Pas United Pbess Association.)

WELLINGTON, March 27. important issues wore raised m the lull oupiumo court to-G4iy in tlio eases 111 wincn Uiu power of PurJiuuient to pass Ujo Military Service Act was challenged, and the contention urn put, iotwai U liu t certain wui* regulations were ultra vires. '.I.lie cases arose over the convictions oil charges of malting use ot seditious utterances recorded against Kobt. Sumpie, ot Jbrooiuyn, Wellington (tliieo cuarges); lliomas l_>r.iidle, wat<_isido worker, Wellington; Peter Eraser, waterside worker, Wellington; Freduricli luley Cooke, Ctiristchurcii; and .James ihom, Clinstehurcn. Jiacli of these is at present serving a term ot 12 moums' imprisonment wan hard labour. 'lhei magistrates wiio cniered the convictions were ivir Kiddell_ (Wellington) and Mr Bishop (Uiu'istcnurcn). it is against their decisions tliat the appeals are now made, llie Bench >was occupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Scout), ivir Justice Uenniston, Mr Justice Cooper, and Mr Justice Chapman. Mr G. Hutchison appeared for the appellants, and the Solicitor-general (Mr Waimond, K.C.) for the intorinants—John O Donovan (Commissioner ot Police), and John Dwyer (superintendent of Police). The following js a summary of the points of law raised uy Air Hutchison: — (1) That the War Regulations Act, 1914, in pursuanco of which regulations were made and under several sub-diwsions of which tho appellants were convicted, was not within the competency of the General Assembly in Parliament assembled to enact, in so iar as such regulations purport to extend to matters and things beyond Nov. Zealand, the power of the General Assembly being limited by the Constitution Act, 1852, to making laws for the peace, order, and good government of New Zealand. (2) That the Military Service Act, 1916, which is referred to m regulation No 1 (K) of December 4, 1916, relative to "compulsory military training or service," in respect of avhich an offence was included in the informations (followed by convictions against the appellants) was not within tho competency of tho General Assembly in Parliament assembled, to in purporting to control and compel tho services and conduct of persons beyond New Zealand, such power not being within the authority conierred on the General. Assembly by the Constitution Act, 1852. (3) That the regulations of December 4, 1916, under several of which tho appellants were charged and convicted, are ultra vires. (4) lliat assuming that the War Regulations Act, 1916, be within the competency of the General Assembly in Parliament assembled to enact regulations, No. 4 of December 4, 1916, made under it in ing to create a new offence—namely, one of "seditious tendency"— is invalid. (5) That the informations and convictions following thereon are bad in form and substance, as including more than one offence.

(6) 'ihat on the hearing of informations an essential step was omittAd, inasmuch as the provisions of section 122 (2) of The Justices of Peace Act, 1908 (as to the right of the appellants to trial by jury) were not complied with. (7) That as a matter of law the alleged seditious utterance in each instance taken with its context and read or considered with the whole utterance or speech does not come within the moaning of the crime of sedition. No. 3 should, as to two appeals by Semple as to utterances on November 26, 1916, and December 3, 1916, refer to the regulations of September 20, 1915. No. 4 does not apply to two appeals by Semple, above mentioned, in respect of utterances prior to the regulations of December •4, 1916. No. 5 does not apply to any of the appeals by Semple as several informations against him include only one offence. Mr Hutchison stated that .five of the cases arose under the War Regulations of December 4 1916, made under the Act of 1914. Two" others; were under the ■ regulations made on September 20, 1915, and concerned Semple alone. In the first instance counsel stated that the cases against Brindle and Fraser were identical. However, the constitutional question concerned all, and he would deal with that first His Honor: Do you suggest that the Judicature can override Parliament? Mr Hutchison: No, sir. I challenge the competency of Parliament to pass the Act. Mr Cooper: Exactly. You claim that the Act is ultra vires.

In supporting his contention that "The Military Service Act, 1916," was beyond the powers of Parliament, as set out in "Tho Constitution Act, 1852," Mr Hutchison said that Parliament could only legislate for persons within New Zealand, and had no power to compel service abroad; He referred to in re Gleicli and other cases in support of his contention. He said that only the Imperial Parliament could give, by altering the Constitution Act, power to pass such a law. With regard to the regulations mado under "The War Regulations Act, 1914," he contended that as they dealt with offences beyond the dominion, they were ultra vires, and void. He also submitted that the regulations purported to create a new offence —one of "seditious t-end-ency." This could not bo done, as sedition* was defined by " The Crimes Act, 1908," and all seditious offences must be dealt with under that Act, and regulations oould not alter or vary the Crimes Act. Counsel did not stress his fifth point-—that the informations, charged more than one offence, Mr Justice Cooper pointing out that only one offence was charged—that 'of seditious utterance. With regard to trial by jury, he contended that " Tho War Regulations Act, 1914," .did not exclude the right to trial by jury, but only excluded the necessity of the presentment of an indictment. In conclusion, ho analysed the various speeches upon which the convictions were founded, and contended that .tho speeches did not bear the construction put upon them by the magistrate.

Sir Robert Stout said the magistrate would not have been honest if he had come to any other conclusion.

Mr Justice Chapman asked whether, if it were possible for Germany to have paid agents—eloquent speakers—in New Zealand as she had done in Russia and other places to try to weaken the military forces or undermine the power of the Government, Germany would not want anything better for her purposes than the speeches under discussion.

Mr Hutchison replied that it would have been better if the speeches had not ,been made, but what he was'"trying to do was to show that the speeches did not offend against the regulations. In conclusion, Mr Hutchison contended, upon the authority of Rex v. _ Burns, that, taking a wide and liberal view of the speeches, the convictions could not be sustained.

The court adjourned till 10.30 a.m. morrow, when the Solicitor-general will prosent argument on behalf of the Crown.