WRESTLING PERMITS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22609, 28 June 1935, Page 4

WRESTLING PERMITS

POWERS OF POLICE INSPECTORS TEST CASE BEFORE FULL COURT (Peb United Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 27. The Full Court to-day considered a dispute between the National Sporting Club (Incorporated), Wellington, and Mr W. G. Wohlmann, Commissioner of Police, and Police Inspector G. B. Edwards. The originating summons before the court asks for an order that: —(1) Regulation 8 of the Police Offences (Wrestling Contests) Regulations, 1931, is invalid, as being beyond the powers conferred on the Governor-General by Section 72 of the Police Offences Act, 1927; (2) that the plaintiff was entitled to a permit to hold a wrestling contest between Earl M'Cready, of Canada, and George Walker at the Wellington Show Association's Stadium on June 3, and such permit was wrongfully withheld; (3) that the plaintiff was entitled to a permit to hold wrestling contests at anv lawful times.

Mr F. C. Spratt appeared for the plaintiff club, and the Solicitor-general, Mr H. H. Cornish, and Mr J. D. Willis appeared for the defendants. In an affidavit filed in support of the stimmons, S. C. Childs,. president of the plaintiff club, stated that in August, 1932, when the club first made application to the police for a wrestling permit, he was informed by Mr Wohlmann that the department would not grant permits to an organisation that was not affiliated with the New Zealand Wrestling Union unless the application for a permit was sponsored by an affiliated organisation. The club was not affiliated to the New Zealand Union, and in 1932 an agreement was arrived at between the club and the union, as a result of which permits were obtained for that season. The club did not endeavour to conduct contests in the 1933 and 1934 seasons, but in May application was made for a permit for a bout between M'Cready and Walker, but the union would not agree, and the commissioner refused to grant the permit. In his answering affidavit the Commissioner of Police said that in 1932 permits were issued to the club, which was unable to secure contestants, with the result that certain approved contests were not held. M'Cready had left New Zealand two days after the application in question was received and before it had been dealt with, and Pereira, who was suggested as a substitute' for M'Cready, wrestled under the New Zealand Union, and hence was not available to the club. The club was not able to import and maintain its own wrestlers and relied on the Pioneer Athletic Club to supply it with contestants, and he had no knowledge of the constitution oi the Pioneer Athletic Club, and whether it was financially able to import and maintain wrestlers. In the past the National Sporting Club had engaged certain wrestlers to compete in contests, and those wrestlers subsequently were un-. able to leave New Zealand on account of lack of finance, and had to be assisted by the New Zealand Union. Moreover, Mr H. D. Bennett, who was formerly secretary and before that president of the New Zealand Wrestling Union, and was connected with the control of the Pioneer Athletic Club, was previously strongly opposed to the granting of licenses to the club.

When the case was called to-day the Solicitor-general submitted that, as the proceedings were ir. the form of an originating summons, inquiry must be restricted to the first question as above stated, .-rid that the court could not deal with the second and third. Mr Spratt, in reply, said the pleadings raised three substantial questions—(l) whether regulation 8, under which the licenses were refused, was valid; (2) whether the inspector had any;discretion to refuse a permit other than that set out in regulation 7; and (3) whether the inspector could refuse a permit on the grounds indicated in this case. He submitted that under regulation 8, as it now stands, a police inspector could refuse' all licenses, and say that in his district there would be no wrestling at all. ,:

The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) : That would be unfortunate. Mr Spratt: It would certainly have repercussions. Continuing, Mr Spratt said the real issue raised between the parties was whether the police could refuse a permit on the grounds indicated in the case before the court.

The Chief Justice remarked' that the court was not in the least concerned with any dispute between two aliened sporting bodies, and that on the proceedings before it it could only interpret the Act and regulations, and for that reason the affidavits filed should be totally disregarded. After some discussion it was agreed that the following questions should be decided by the court: (1) Is regulation S valid? (2) Is a police inspector entitled to refuse a license as a matter of course? (3) If he is not, what is the limit of his discretion?

Mr Spratt then quoted authority at length in support of his contention that regulation 8 was' beyond the power given to the Governor-General by the Police Offences Act, 1927. The Solicitor-genernl, for the defendants, submitted that the police authorities had power to refuse a permit both under the Act and under the regulations. Both of these gave the inspector nn absolute discretion, but that discretion must be exercised in accordance with the law, and if a police inspector failed to exercise any discretion then his action could be the subject of review by the court. He contended that it was common knowledge that wrestling contests conducted for gain were likely to develop into public disorders and create breaches of the peace, and that knowledge must be kept in view in construing the Statute and the regulations. He submitted, furthermore, that the mere fact that the police had to be present did not meet all the demands of law and order. It was vitally necessary that they should have the right to refuse permits altogether to some wrestlers. The court reserved its decision.