SAMOAN RIOTS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18619, 15 July 1930, Page 6

SAMOAN RIOTS.

ECHO IN APPEAL COURT. SOLICITOR'S CONVICTION. By Telegraph—Press Association. WELLINGTON, July 14. The Full Court, consisting of Chief Justice Myers, Justices Herdman, Adams and Reed, to-day heard the appeal of Thomas Benjamin Slipper, of Apia, Samoa, barrister and solicitor, from the conviction recorded against him in Samoa this year. The information was laid against Mr Slipper on February 14 by Mr Braisley, a police official, that on February 12, he did publish a defamatory libel against the Administrator of Samoa in a letter which he wrote to the Administrator, and that in the letter were words abusing and insulting to a member of the Legislative Council of Samoa. The case came on for hearing before Chief Justice Luxford, on February 26, at Apia. The prosecution contended that the meaning of the letter was that the Administrator refused to protect the women and children of Samoa against terrorisation by an armed Government force and against death by unjustifiable rifle fire, and that the Administrator intended to inflict bloodshed upon the Samoans in order to secure for himself absolute rule of the country. The defence was that the letter was not defamatory within the meaning of the Samoan Act—that the statements in the letter were true in fact, and were for the public benefit, and that the letter was privileged as it was written by a solicitor for a client. The Judge held that the letter did, in fact, impute the meaning alleged by the prosecution—that the statements in the letter were untrue and that the letter was not privileged, as a letter written by a solicitor for a client. Mr Slipper was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and fined £lO5. Subsequent to this conviction, Mr Slipper’s practising certificate was cancelled by the Administrator. Mr Slipper is now appealing against this conviction, and is represented by Mr H. N. Von Haast and Mr S. Fitzherbert. Counsel for the Crown is the Solicitor-General, Mr A. Fair, K.C. Mr Von Haast, for the appellant, said the appeal was brought under Section 83 of the Samoa Act, 1921. Slipper had been found g'ullty on both charges and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, and fined £lO5 on one charge ,and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on the other sentences, to be concurrent. Both charges were based on one set of facts —the writing of a letter, and therefore Slipper was convicted twice for the same act. That was contrary to the principals of law, and one conviction at least must be quashed. In Samoa a man charged with defamatory libel had not protection such as was given in New Zealand under the Crimes Act. The words in the letter complained of and the views expressed therein were the words and views of Slipper’s client, and the communication of them to the Administrator was privileged, as communications made by a solicitor on behalf of his client. A solicitor was bound to do his best for his client, and in any criminal charge against a solicitor the malice of a client could not be implied to him. It was true . that Slipper had said in his letter:— “It is regrettable that death and bloodshed appear to be of small consequence to your Excellency compared with the desire, evident and expressed, of absolutism.” But this was not a personal attack on the Administrator, but a criticism of the policy adopted by the Administrator, and by the Samoan Government. The Chief Justice remarked that it was highly regrettable that any solicitor should write such a letter, whether it involved the commission of an offence or not. “A solicitor,” his Honour continued, “should have more respect for himself, his profession and for his duty as a solicitor than to write such a letter.” Mr Von Haast agreed that the wording of the letter was unjudioious and crude, but pointed out that Slipper had represented the natives in all mat- ; ters that arose out of the troubled i events of December, 1929. In the end he suggested that Slipper’s judgment had been affected by the stress of the j times. After the luncheon adjournment. Mr Von Haast asked leave of the Court to put in evidence taken in Samoan relating to the policy of the Adminis- , trator during the disturbances in I December of last year, and to make submissions thereon for the purpose of acquainting the Court with the “atmosphere” in Samoa in that time. The Solicitor-General, however, I objected on the ground that such sub- i missions were irrelevant, and might, j contrary to Mr Von Haast’s intentions, I be used as propaganda to stir up | dissatisfaction against the Adminis- ! trator. The Court allowed the evidence to ! be put in, and Mr Von Haast proceeded to deal with it. He criticised j the action of the Administrator J in j connection with the arrests of j Samoans. Mr Fitzherbert, in support, contend- j ed that in order to determine whether * Mr Slipper had been actuated by malice, the Court should take notice of the 1 whole correspondence between the 1 parties, the physical events leading to | the writing of the letter, and the mental attitude of Mr Slipper and his Samoan client. The hearing was adjourned till tomorrow.