FILM LICENSE REFUSES

Taranaki Daily News, 29 March 1933, Page 9

FILM LICENSE REFUSES

WRIT OF MANDAMUS SOUGHT POWERS GIVEN THE MINISTER. DISCUSSION IN APPEAL COURT. ATTACK UPON REGULATIONS. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The Court of Appeal is considering an application brought by Robert James Kerridge, Gisborne, for a -writ of mandamus ordering Roy Girling-Bircher, chief inspector under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1928, to consider and deal with an application made by Kerridge on December 2 for a license for the projection of cinematograph films in respect of certain premises to be erected in Hinemoa Street, Rotorua. In his statement of claim Kerridge alleges that following his application his solicitors received a letter from Girling-' Butcher wherein the latter stated he had received an instruction from the Minister of Industries and Commerce, made pursuant to the Board of Trade (cinematograph film) regulations of 1932, directing him not to issue the license asked for and that he proposed to act under that direction.

These proceedings came before Mr. Justice Ostler on March 8 and were removed by him into the Court of Appeal. Mr. F. C. Spratt, with him Mr. Hurley, is appearing for plaintiff and Mr. Fair, Solicitor-General, for the defendant.

Mr. Spratt said Girling-Butcher had absolutely refused to consider Kerridge’s application because of the instruction from the Minister, purported to be made under the Board of Trade . regulations, 1932. Kerridge claimed that those regulations were ultra vires in that they were made without statutory authority. They conferred on the Minister powers far wider than those which the Board of Trade Act, 1919, enabled to be conferred. They were so wide as to confer upon the Minister the right to say who should be admitted to the exhibiting industry, or the right to say how many or how few picture theatres there should be in each particular town. RIGHT TO LICENSE. Section 32 of the Cinematograph Films Act gave to any applicant the absolute right to an exhibitor’s, license. ' The regulations in so far as they purported to take away that right were repugnant to the statute and were therefore bad. The effect of regulations, if they were to stand, was alarming. They created in the hands of the Minister power to rule the industry as he thought fit —to create a monopoly in favour of any particular theatre—and no exhibitor however humble could exhibit if he chose to say “Thou shalt not.” The provisions of the regulations and the provisions of the Cinematograph Act could not stand together, and therefore the former must go. Mr. Spratt submitted that if the. regulations could be sustained Parliament had abdicated its right and duty to legislate in respect of those matters with which the regulations dealt. To this last point Mr. Justice MacGregor replied: “I don’t think that is very astonishing to us in New Zealand.” Opening the case for the defendant the Solicitor-General submitted that the whole question depended solely on the construction of Section 26 of the Board of Trade Act. That section, he contended, was wide enough to empower the Governor-General-in-Council to issue the regulations now in dispute. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers: “According to your view this section gives the Govemor-General-in-Council power to prevent all grocers except one operating in Lambton Quay?” Mr. Justice Reed: “Or to say that the Supreme Court shall not until further orders from the Minister admit any more solicitors to the Bar.” Mr. Justice Ostler said the regulations seemed to him to take away most of the freedom that he thought citizens in New Zealand possessed. It appeared to give the Minister power to say any young man who qualified himself by examination should not enter into the profession of his choice. The Chief Justice asked the SolicitorGeneral whether the Court should not exert all its ingenuity to avoid all these alleged' consequences. “COURT’S DUTY PLAIN.”

The Solicitor-General submitted that such was not the position, but in any event the words of the section were plain and the Court was bound to enforce them, no matter how unpleasant it might be. Mr. Justice MacGregor suggested a good short title for the Board of Trade Act would be "More Government m Business.” , ~ Mr. Justice Reed asked where the legislation came from. On the Solicitor-General stating Wat he did not know the judge said: "Not Russia, I suppose?” Mr. Spratt: "No; made in New Zealand.” Dealing with the necessity for the regulations the Solicitor-General said that prior to April, 1932, certain larger and more important firms had entered into a combination, pooling their profits in respect to certain theatres and generally co-operating with one another. This combination controlled the largest and most popular theatres in the chief towns, and. consequently were able to obtain contracts for the use of the most important pictures from the renters. It had been alleged that in certain towns members of the combination had approached’ independent exhibitors and threatened to erect competitive theatres unless such owners were agreeable to lease their theatres to the combination and agree that they should be entitled to half the net profits. The combination by its business and influence with the renters would enable any of its members to obtain a monopoly of early bookings in any town and would destroy the business of the existing companies. It was at this type of competition that the regulations were aimed. The Chief Justice remarked that the regulations could be devised to meet unfair competition if there were unfair competition, but that was a far different thing from the regulations in question. The court adjourned until to-morrow.