ASSAULT ON PHOTOGRAPHER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23810, 17 May 1939, Page 7

ASSAULT ON PHOTOGRAPHER

R.A.A.F. MEN ACCUSED INCIDENT AT CRASHED PLANE (From Oub Own Correspondent) SYDNEY, May 2. Newspaper proprietors and journalists have been aroused to unprecedented indignation by an assault on a newspaper photographer by sentries guarding the wreckage of a crashed aeroplane. They are combining in protests to the Federal Government against tactics that, they say, savour of the " bashef gangs ' of the Sydney timber strike 10 year* ago and of Fascism. The photographer, Mr Alexander Stewart, oaid that he* was at the scene of the crash with the authority of the lessee of the property on which the crash occurred. He was attempting to take photographs, and was ordered away by the police. He showed a police pass, but they forced him to go .back to the road. About an hour later he went back to the scene, and was seized by a policeman, who said, "You will have tt get off this property." As he was being escorted away he took a photograph of a group of airmen around a fire. A policeman was holding him by the arm when four or five members of the Air Force came over to him. One seized his camera; one put two fingers in his nostrils until his nose bled; another put his hand over his mouth. The camera was wrenched away by force. He was so maltreated that he fell to the ground. The men went away with his camera, using indecent language. He appealed to the police for action, but that was refused. f Regrettable Incident Group-commander De La Rue, officer in command of the Richmond R.A.A.F. station, said that a regrettable incident had occurred. " I gave instructions to sentries that no photographs of the wreckage could be taken until I had received the permission of the secretary of the Air Board," he added. "A photographer began to take pictures, whereupon one of the sentries told him that he could not do that. The photographer swore at him. The sentry took exception to the remark, and hit him under the chin, and also confiscated his camera." The Minister for Defence (Mr G A. Street) admitted the incident was regrettable, but said Captain De La Rue, in his official report to the Minister, denied saying that a sentry had admitted hitting the photographer under the chin. The newspaper reporting the interview reaffirmed its correctness. Mr Street said that the R.A.A.F version admitted that sentries had endeavoured to prevent the photographer from taking photographs of the • crashed aircraft. It was slated that, despite earnest requests to the photographer to refrain from taking photographs, he exposed two plates, whereupon Air Force personnel took possession of the camera for the purpose of removing the exposed plates. Apart from that action, the evidence obtained on oath from the personnel concerned and eye-witnesses disclosed that the photographer was not subjected to any personal violence. Mr Street said while Air Force personnel might have acted precipitately in forcibly taking possession of the camera, it was felt that the incident could have been avoided bv the photographer exercising more tact in dealing with men who were under an unusual strain while guarding the vreekage of an aircraft in which four « l their comrades had just lost their lives. An Inquiry Requested The Australian Journalists' Association, of which newspaper photographers are members, is not satisfied that the Minister of Defence has been given a correct version. It has asked the Prime Minister to authorise a thoroughly impartial inquiry to prevent a recurrence of such incidents, adding, "This incident is the culminating emsode in a series of similar happenings, suggesting that Air Force men are not only exceeding their rights, but doins so under instruction or with the connivance, of their superior officers. The executive is emphatically opposed to any form of censorship. If the Defence' Department does not desire the publication of photographs of Air Force crashes it should address itself officially to the newspaper proprietors, and not carry out an unofficial policy by the crude expedient of intimidating and assaulting press photographers." The newspaper proprietors have pointed out to the Prime Minister that a deputation of proprietors and journalists was assured several months ago that facilities would be made available to the press to obtain photographs and that previous efforts to prevent pictures from being taken were officially described as being due to an "•ccess of zeaL"