A CIPHER RADIOGRAM.

Ohinemuri Gazette, Issue 3941, 8 July 1918, Page 3

A CIPHER RADIOGRAM.

PROSECUTION IN MELBOURNE

The sender of a radio-telegram in code from Melbourne to King Island led to the prosecution in Melbourne of Frank Forbes, accountant, of Collins Street, en a charge of having, on April 25, 1918, contrary to the War Precautions Regulations, and without lawful authority, used a cipher adapted for secretly communicating naval information. A further charge of having on the same date, made, in writing, a statement in a radio-telegram which was likely to cause public alarm, namely, "Raider about coast," which telegram was addressed to "Bertram, King Island," was also preferred against Forbes. Mr Bryant (instructed by the Federal Cr&wn solicitor) conducted the prosecution, and Mr Pigott (instructed by Messrs Seton Williams and Heathfield) appeared for Forbes, who pleaded not guilty to both charges. •

Mr Bryant said that the penalty provided on conviction was a fine of £100, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. Forbes.had some interest in King Island. On April 25 he sent a radio-telegram in cipher to one Bertram on King Island. Forbes had been in the habit of sending press messages to a newspaper there, which in the ordinary course of events would be censored. He, however, conceived the idea, and he and Bertram would arrange some mean? of communicating important information. On April 25 there were rumours that a raider was about the coast. On April 25 Forbes sent Bertram the following radio-telegram, which was not submitted to the censor :—

"Robinson , and Ingram decided every reason accepting Bradmore's offer unless trust committee opposed any shorter term."

Continuing, Mr Bryant said that Fcrbes really intended to communicate to Bertram that there was a raider about the coast, as if the first letter of each word were taken the message "Raider about coast" was spelt. That Bertram understood it was quite evident, as he replied in a similar way, his radio-telegram read-

"Friends leaving Yambacooma owing violent eruption Ruapehu."

The first letter of each word gave the answer "Fly over." A raider, which was usually fitted with wireless, could have picked up such a message as Forbes had sent, and as the operator on her would presumably have been skilled in reading code messages it would have been a warning to her, and she could have succeeded, in getting away before our forces could have intercepted her. He had been instructed not to press for heavy penalties. The Minister merely desired that the public should be informed that this kind of thing could not be allowed. Evidence in support of the case for the prosecution was given by several witnesses. Frank Forbes, the defendant, said that at the time when the telegrams were sent the matter referred to was being discussed in the public press The telegram to Bertram was private, and not for circulation. Only the press telegrams were posted outside the office of the newspaper at King Island. Mr Bryant.; In your replies when questioned by the Naval authorities, a report of which was taken by a shorthand writer, you said : "I have influence on the island, and what I say goes. 1* Witness : It does. You are a big bug there ?—No, I am a little tin god." (Laughter.) Mr Pigott submitted that there was no evidence to show that any offence had been committed, as the cipher had not been adapted for secretly communicating naval information. The statement which Forbes had made could not cause public alarm from the very fact that it was in cipher, also, was not a statement in writing. His client, however, wished him to say that he very much regretted his action, as he had had no wish to offend against the regulations.

The marshal said that he found the defendant guilty on both charges, but he did not think that Forbes had sent this message with any ulterior motive, but merely with the object of disseminating the news that there was a raider about. The regulations under which the prosecution was taken had been framed with the object of preventing the kind of thing of which the defendant had been guilty. The defendant's act, he believed, had merely been thoughtless, and he would therefore only inflict a fine of £7 10s in each case, with £6 6s costs.