GISBORNE LOAN DISPUTE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19126, 22 September 1936, Page 4

GISBORNE LOAN DISPUTE

BOARD CHANGE OF FRONT QUERIES P.Y JUDGES APPEAL COURT ARGUMENT (Special to the Herald.) WELLINGTON, this day. Whether certain documents should be produced ill court proceedings taken by a Gisborne ratepayer against the Local Government Loan's Board and the Gisborne Fire Board was a question argued before the Court of Appeal. The appellants were George Charles Rodda, secretary to the Treasury, and other members of the Loans Board, and tho respondent was Henry 1 ietor Lunken, retired storekeeper, of Gisborne. On the Bench were their Honours Mr. Justice Ostler, Mr. Justice Blair, Mr. Justice. Kennedy, and Air. Justice Callau.

Mr. A. E. Currie, Crown Solicitor, ap peared for the appellants, and Mr. L, f. Barnard, of Gisborne, for the re spondent , instructed by Air. D. W. lies,

In April last Lunken commenced an action as a Gisborne ratepayer against the Gisborne Fire Board and the members of the Local Government Loans Board to set aside the Loans Board s decision sanctioning the raising of a loan of £II.COO by the Fire Board: to prohibit the Fire Board from acting on that decision, and to prevent it from raising and spending money in pursuance of the loan proposals. In the course of the proceedings Lunken called on the Loans Board to produce for inspection certain documents, but the Loans Board objected to that on tiie grounds that the Minister of Finance had instructed that the documents were privileged in the public interest. STATE DOCUMENT CLAIM Although it was claimed on behalf of the Loans Board that the documents were State documents, the Actiig Chief Justice, Sir John Reed, held in July that that could not be conceded. Ilis Honour decided that the information placed before the Loans Board at a. formal meeting by the documents in question, whether ire the shape of reports or records of evidence taken, could not be regarded as coming from State documents, but was just the sort of material that would he required by the Loans Board to enable it to determine whether a loan should or should not be sanctioned. Prima facie, they were not such documents the production of which would injure the State. His Honour added that the only-other ground suggested by the Minister was that the documents were official and confidential, but in his opinion that alone was not a good reason for their non-production. He accordingly made an order for the inspection of the documents, with the proviso that if any of them were submitted to him and found by him to be detrimental to the public service to produce, a supplementary order would be made withdrawing such documents from inspection. It was against the decision of His Honour that the Loans Board appealed. IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE Mr. Currie said that an important constitutional principle wa«t involved. The Minister of Finance had given his certificate that the disclosure of the documents was against the interest of the State and the Public Service, and he considered that that concluded the matter. The court had no power to go behind the Minister’s certificate. Mr. Currie then reviewed the authorities at considerable length. Dealing with the facts of this case, Mr. Currie contended that the documents were not required for the proof of the plaintiff’s case.

Mr. Justice Blair: How did the loan become authorised? It had been turned down Lv the Loans Board and suddenly it gets up again without rhyme or reason and is authorised.

Mr. Currie; Mr. Coleman, M.P., the chairman of the Fire Board, saw the Loans Board and the Minister. Mr. Justice Blair: What has that got to do with it? Why did they go to the Minister? Mr. Justice Gallan: I see it is solemnly pleaded that there was a change of Government. CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Currie: The Gisborne Fire Board’s deputation was entitled to see the Minister. When the Minister approached the Board, it looked into the matter again. Air. Justice Blair: A friendly hint—but the statute says its not to'happen.

Mr. Currie: Members of Parliament have a certain amount of influence.

Air. Justice Blair: They may, but that’s just what they should not have. Surely the Loans Board does not carry on its business on these lines. Air. Currie: The Board has a rule that it will not entertain interviews from objectors. Aliy Justice Callan: But it will entertain personal interviews from people who want loans.

Mr. Burnard, for the respondent, submitted that the courts had, for over a century, treated the Clown’s privilege as being based upon principle and confined to narrow limits. Mr. Burnard contended that the reasons assigned by the Alinister for refusing to produce the reports of engineers and officers were farciful, and stated that until to-day the plaintiff was unaware of the influence exerted by the Alinister and Air. 1

Coleman, following the latter’s interview with the board and leading to a reversal of its finding. The decision of the Court of Appeal was reserved.