THE SLIPPER CASE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18620, 16 July 1930, Page 6

THE SLIPPER CASE

HEARING CONTINUED. By Telegraph—Press Association. WELLINGTON, July 15. The Full Court, consisting of Chief Justice Myers, Justices Herdman, Adams and Reed, to-day continued the hearing of the appeal of Thomas Benjamin Slipper, of Apia, Samoa, barrister and solicitor, from the conviction recorded against him in Samoa this year. The Solicitor-General for the Crown, contended that the letter to the Administrator contained several gross defamatory libels, which were: (1) That the Administrator deliberately adopted and determined to continue the terrorisation of women and children; (2) that the Administrator regarded the safety of Samoan women and children as of no consequence; (3) that the Administrator would not prevent unnecessary victimisation and shooting of women and children; (4) that death and bloodshed were of small consequence to the Adminisrator coxhpared with his desire, evident and expressed. of absolutism.

The Solicitor-General submitted that considering the surrounding circumstances, and the time when the letter was written, it was hard to conceive a libel more calculated to bring the Administrator into hatred and contempt. The charges in the letter were absolutely false, and made the Administrator out to be a man with whom no decent person would associate, and absolutely unfitted for the duties of the office placed upon him. Mr Slipper had endeavoured to make the letter as insulting and abusive as possible. The letter was not entitled to protection as being privileged as privilege was destroyed because the charges were made recklessly and the letter contained a defamatory statement irrelevant to the matters in common interest. Further, neither Mr Slipper nor his lady clients had any honest belief in the truth of the statements. The privilege of Mr Slipper as a solicitor was co-extensive with that of his clients and his clients had none. There were two separate charges proved against Slipper, and he was rightly convicted in respect of both. The two charges required proof and different facts, which were established in the Court below. The Administrator was a member of the Legislative Council of Western Samoa, and also a member of the Civil Service. The Administrator was not made expressly a member of the Council, but was entitled to preside with the right of veto. His position in the Council, however, was not made precisely clear by the Statute, but there was no doubt that he was a member |of the Civil Service, and that estab- | lished the second charge. The Court had no power to review the amount of the sentence imposed by the Chief Judge of Samoa. Decision was reserved.