APPEAL SUCCEEDS

Southland Times, Issue 21650, 11 March 1932, Page 7

APPEAL SUCCEEDS

NEW GUARD LEADER

MAGISTRATE’S FINDING UPSET RULING OF JUDGE (United Press Assn.—By Telegraph—Copyright.) (Rec. 10. 10 p.m.) Sydney, March 10. In his appeal against his conviction Colonel Eric Campbell, leader ol the New Guard, sought a prohibition directed to the Magistrate, Mr Laidlaw, and PoliceSergeant Lendrum against the enforcement of the Magistrate’s decision in the lower Court imposing a line of £2 and. 8/- costs for using insulting language. Mr Justice Street in chambers ruled that it was not necessary for him to decide whether the words complained of were insulting. It. was common ground that if they were insulting they were insulting to one individual only, and the one individual in respect of whom they w’ere insulting was not present when Colonel Campbell used the words. Mr Justice Street held that the case was governed by a decision of the State Full Court in 1918 (exparti Breen, 18 State Law Reports). In that case the words complained of were used at a meeting in a public street and referred to the large number of women workers carrying out war duties. The Chief Justice dealt fully on that occasion with the meaning of the word insulting as used in the Vagrancy Act. He laid down the law as follows: “I cannot regard the enactment as going furl her than providing a penalty for those who violate public order by language calculated to hurt the [>ersonal feelings of individuals whether the words are addressed directly to themselves or used in the hearing or in regard to their own character or persons closely associated with them.”

Mr Justice Street added that the Magistrate, Mr Laidlaw, had relied on a subsequent decision in the case of Wragge and Pritchard in 1930, where the words were uttered in a public street. Plaintiff was not present and did not hear them, but they were heard by bystanders and two friends. The Full Court decision in this instance supported Mr Laidlaw’s finding, but Mr Justice Street preferred to think the decision in regard to Breen should have been applied to Colonel Campbell’s case, particularly as the High Court had refused leave to appeal against it. Therefore Colonel Campbell's appeal was upheld. The order for prohibition was made absolute.

Colonel Campbell was reported as saying: “The people of New South Males will not permit Mr Lang to open the Sydney Harbour bridge. We in our generation are forever dishonoured if we allow Mr Lang to open the bridge, and we of the New’ Guard will tell him now that he is not to be given that honour. Let us see that somebody of quality, if possible some Prince of Royal blood, opens it on behalf of the people of the State.” Reverting to the petition to the King to dissolve the Legislative Assembly, Colonel Campbell said: “If it is not granted then I will put before you for adoption other means. —quite lawful and appreciated by constitutional lawyers of high standard —but believe me, ven - , very effective.”