SUBVERSION CHARGES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 84, Issue 86, 13 April 1940, Page 12

SUBVERSION CHARGES

HEARING IN AUCKLAND CONTENTION OF CROWN [ Per Press Association. ] AUCKLAND, April 12. After two adjournments the first charges laid under the Censorship and Publicity Emergency Regulations, • 1939, were heard before Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in the Police Court today. I Details o£ the charges are:— | Donald McCarthy, four charges: ’, That on February 9 and 16 he pubI fished a subversive report, a newsj paper, the People’s Voice, chat on the ■said dates he permitted to be printed I lor publication in the People’s Voice, vilh a view to facilitating publication or communication of a subversive report. . Cyril John Gould: Four charges. ' That on February 9 and 16 he published a subversive report, the People’s Voice; that on the said dates he per|milted the newspaper to be printed for publication with a view to facilitating the publication or communication of a subversive report. Walter Ashton, four charges: That 1 on January 11 and February 15 ne published certain subversive reports, leaflets headed ‘‘Men and Women of New Zealand” ’ and “Soldiers and Workers,” and that on the said dates he requested Frank Simpson to print the leaflets with a view to facilitating the publication or communication ul subversive reports. William Goss Dickenson, two charges: That on October 24, 1939, he published a subversive report, a leaflet headed “For Peace,” and that on the said date he requested Frank Simpson to print the leaflet with a view to facilitating the publication or communication of a subversive report. Frank Simpson, eight charges: That on October 24, 1939, January 11, January 21, and February 15, 1940, he published subversive reports, leaflets headed “For Peace,” “Men and Women of New Zealand,” “Labour Imperialists,” and “Soldiers and Workers”; that on the dates mentioned he printed the said leaflets with a view to facilitating the publication or communication of subversive reports. Each of the informations was signed by the Attorney-General, inn. 1-1. G. R. Mason, his consent to the prosecution being given under the Censorship and Publicity Emergency Regulations, 1939. Mr. J. Hogben appeared for the defendants Gould, McCarthy, and Ashton. Mr. F. Haigh appeared fur Dickenson, and. Mr. R. Norris lor Simpson. Opening for the Crown, Mr. V. R. Meredith submitted that firstly tae documents must be read as a whole to appreciate their general character and purport and probable effect. Reminders of War. Mr. Meredith said the documents must also be read in the light of the circumstances in which New Zealand was living. “The British Empire is at war,” he said, “and New Zealand, as part of the Empire, is also invoi-vca in that war. The Government, to whom is entrusted the control and welfare of this Dominion, has solmenly declared the need for and has asked for a large number of recruits, ft is recognised that the war is one in respect of which our future national welfare, or indeed our very existence, may be at stake. It is of paramount importance that the effort to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion should not be hampered in the slightest degree. Any acts done or any words spoken or written with a view to or with the effect of retarding and impeding the national effort is, in effect, striking a more deadly blow than an active open enemy could strike agaTnst us on the battlefields.” ( Mr. Meredith added that the gravity of the offences was that there were attempts to create in the minds of readers of the documents feelings that to light was to make a personal saci ifice of life for a cause that had nJ justice behind it and that the war was a deliberate creation by unscrupulous interests for their own particular benefit and financial gain. The direct result of such propaganda was to act adversely against recruiting and foster feelings of hostility to those conducting the war and generally to prosecute the war effort, thereby minimising the chances of ultimate success. The first case called was that of Dickenson, .\ho pleaded not guilty through counsel. Mr. Haigh, appearing for accused, Dickenson said the leaflet published by Dickenson should be judged as a whole, not on isolated passages, and should be viewed in a spirit of freedom, not that of narrow criticism. Mr. Hogben, who appeared for accused Gould, Ashton and McCarthy, said he did not intend to call evidence, but to make a general address on their behalf. “It is difficult to ' imagine,” said Mr. Hogben, “how any I weekly newspaper in New Zealand is I going to interfere with the success of His Majesty’s forces overseas.’’ Disruption of the morale of the civil population was also charged against accused by the prosecution, but it was a very vague term and he failed to see how it could be proved that the reports mentioned could have that result. There had been an advance since the days of the Stai Chamber, Mr. Hogben continued, when citizens did not dare to mention the name of royalty. Freedom of expression, which was part of democracy, had extended widely in recent years. It was difficult to say wheer political opinion I ended and sedition began, he added, but if the articles were capable of two interpretations they should be given that which aimed to achieve ends by constitutional means. Criticism of national and international politics and politicians had been part of the national life during the past few years and that fact should be taken into account in the present case. The magistrate reserved his deci-