COURTS-MARTIAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24635, 17 June 1941, Page 6

COURTS-MARTIAL

CASE AGAINST AIRMAN

SCANDALOUS CONDUCT ALLEGED THREE OTHER CHARGES (P.A.) • CHRISTCHURCH, June 16. An encounter between officers of the R.N.Z.A.F. in the private bar of the Bush Inn, Riccarton, on April 15 had its sequel to-day, when Flying Officer Donald Alexander Gillanders. of Whenuapai, stood his trial before a court-martial at Wigrarn. He was charged With behaving in a scandalous manner unbecoming to the character of an'officer and. a gentleman in that lie passed disparaging and insulting remarks about the R.N.Z.A.F. in general and about his squadron in particular. He also faced two charges of being absent without leave and a fourth charge of neglect to the prejudice of good order and Air Force'discipline in incurring mess .bills totalling £2l Is 9d, and neglecting to pay them. Conversation in Bar Giving Evidence on the first charge, Flight Lieutenant. M. W. Mills said he, in company with Squadron Leader A. C. Parsons, met Flying Officer Gillanders in the private bar of the Bush Inn. Flight Lieutenant Mills said to the accused: “ Hallo, are' you still here? When I saw you on the boat the other night did you not say you were going back to your unit? Then the rumour about you being absent without leave is not true? ” It was then, said witness. that Flying Officer Gillanders used the language complained of. He also, said he had seen the local member of Parliament (Mr H. S. S. Kyle) about things, and had- also seen the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) or was about to see him. The accused gave witness the impression that he was seeing these members of Parliament with the idea of facilitating his non-return to his unit, and possibly obtaining relief from his duties, as an Air Force officer. Flight Lieutenant Mills said he asked Flying Officer GUlanders if he did not remember the order forbidding Air Force memoers' approaching members of Parliament. Squadron Leader Parson the conversation at that stage, and then Flying Officer Gillanders used derogatory language about the Air Force and his commanding officer. , Under cross-examination, Flight Lieutenant Mills said his first remarks to the accused were in a jocular manner but, as the conversation proceeded, he felt his remarks were drawing more serious comment than was intended. Squadron Leader Parson gave corroborative evidence. Provocation Alleged Opening the defence. Flying Officer N. A. Morrison said that evidence would be called to show that not all the words charged against the accused were used and. if they were, they were Used under great provocation. / Flying Officer E. H. Garrick, who was in the bar at the time of the discussion. said that one,or two remarks made by Sauadron Leader Parson and Flight Lieutenant Mills, appeared to be designed to provoke the accused. They were “having him on all the time. Witness said he could not remember the details of the conversation. because he saw trouble brewing and deliberately kept out of it. William George Haybittle. a barman at Bush Inn. said that the accused asked Squadron Leader Parson and Flight Lieutenant Mills to have a drink, but they refused. • Flight Lieutenant Mills asked the accused if he was enipying his holiday, and this led to words between them. Squadron Leader Parson said to the accused that he should be ashamed of himself, and at his age should have been overseas. There was a lot of this soft of thine and the accused got qrigry and finally boiled over. The three became rather heated. .The other two were aggressive towards the accused. Squadron Leader Parson- later apologised to , and shook hands with the accused. Witness heard no reference to the accused's unit and. none of the language complained of. though he was in the bar most of the time. It appeared to him that the others goaded the accused - and deliberately provoked him,:- During the argument Squadron Leader. Parson said the accused should be overseas; The.' accused then said: “You’re, all right. You are in a good safe job. the best you ever bad.” Flight Lieutenant Mills said. “ What about yourself? You have never had such a good job.” The accused replied that he would be better off on , the farm. When the conversation started Squadron Leader Parson and Flight Lieutenant Mills had had some drinks, two or possibly three, bu oerhans only one.

Evidence by Accused

The accused, in evidence, said he asked Squadron Leader Parson and Flight Lieutenant Mills to have a drink but they said they would not .drink with him. Flight Lieutenant Mills asked how he was enjoying his holiday, and the accused told him he didn’t think it was, “any of his business.” He told them he was supposed to have his tonsils out, but was told by his doctor that fie would have to have his tedth attended to first, which he'did. They kept firing questions at him, and he told them that be thought his duty was to go back on the farm as his father was getting on in years and farm labour was scarce. Flight Lieutenant ■ Mills ■ then said he had heard that the accused was ‘‘ no good " bn/the farm anyway. ' : Witness said it was at this stage that he mentioned that he was thinking of seeing Mr H. S. S. Kyle, M.P., to try to have himself placed on the reserve of officers or on indefinite leave of absence without pay. Flight Lieutenant Mills then returned to the question of absence without leave, and told the . accused that he would get into trouble with Air Headquarters; “I replied that I was so fed up with everything that I didn’t care.” said witness. “ Squadron Leader Parson then butted ih and said I had turned out to be a proper waster.” A Charge Denied

The accused denied that he* had called Squadron Leader Roberts an insulting name. He might have said he was a bit tough at times. “ I would say that they were out to get me worked up and aggravated,” the accused said. “ I had no grudge whatever against them. They just seemed to pick on me. I would not have mentioned anything about the service to them had they not started it.” Squadron Leader Parson after the conversation apologis&d to the accused and shook hands, saying that he had said some things he should not have said.

. “ I admit 1 lost my temper to a certain degree, and might have said things I should not have,” the accused said, though he denied using the language set out in the charge. At the time of the conversation, which was started by Flight Lieutenant Mills, he had had three drinks.

To the prosecutor, the accused said that Flight Lieutenant Mills’s remarks were made in a manner that would have aggravated anybody. To the judge advocate, he said that, though he became heated, he had not said anything that he could not now recall. After addresses by defending counsel and the prosecutor, the court closed to consider its finding, which will be promulgated in due course. WELLINGTON PROCEEDINGS SEVERE REPRIMANDS IN TWO CASES (P.A.) WELLINGTON, June 16. The result of the proceedings of the court-martial held m Wellington on Friday and Saturday was announced to-day. Major G. F. Vance, who was acquitted of the more serious charge brought against him, was found guilty of conduct to'the prejudice of good order and military discipline, and sentenced to be severely reprimanded. Tn the cases against non-commissioned

officers also charged with conduct to the prejudice of good order arid military discipline, Sergeant J. A. McK. Wallace was found not guilty,, yririle Sergeant R. A. Godtschalk was found guilty and sentenced to be reprimanded. •