FAILURE TO RENDER TRAINING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 87, Issue 28, 4 February 1943, Page 3

FAILURE TO RENDER TRAINING

TRADE UNION SECRETARY FINED £lO. Palmerston N., Feb. 2. In the Magistrate’s Court, Feilding, to-day, reserved decision was given by Mr. Coleman, S.M., in the case in which Ernest James Bowater, union secretary, was prosecuted by Lieutenant S. L. Orr, adjutant of the Manawatu battalion of the Home Guard for failure to render the military training required of him. A conviction was entered and a tine of £lO imposed. After reviewing the evidence and the admissions of defendant, the magistrate stated: ‘Mr. Ongley for defendant raised two special defences. He submitted, first, that there was nothing to show that informant had any authority to institute and maintain this prosecution, that the matter alleged against defendant could only be an offence by invoking Army Order No. 97, that it was not a breach of the general laws of the country and that, before anyone could prosecute for a breach of army orders, such person must be authorised by a competent authority to prosecute. Secondly, he submitted there was nothing in evidence to show that defendant was under any obligation to attend drills of the Manawatu Battalion of the Home Guard. He admitted defendant was a member of the Home Guard, but contended there was nothing to show he was legally a member of the Manawatu Battalion of that organisation. “I do not think Mr. Ongley’s first objection can be sustained. It may be true in a restricted sense that defendant is guilty of an offence under Army Order No. 97, but he is also guilty in respect of much wider and more general legislative provisions, namely Regulation 15 of the Defence Emergency Regulations, 1941, which required him to undergo military service. I cannot agree with defendant’s counsel in his submission that this was not a case of breach of general laws enacted for the benefit of the public. The Emergency Regulations Act, 1939, and the Defence Emergency Regulations made pursuant to it appear to me to be essentially and in an exceptionally greater measure designed to safeguard and promote the safety and well-being of the public of the Dominion and I am of opinion, therefore, that it was quite competent for informant to initiate and prosecute these proceedings. Defendant’s Admissions. “As regards the second special defence it is true that no specific authority was cited before me establishing the exact and particular authority of informant to post defendant to the Manawatu Battalion of the Home Guard, but it was proved in evidence and by defendant's own admissions (1) that he was a duly and legally enrolled member of the Home Guard; (2) that informant

was an officer and adjutant of the Manawatu Battalion, among whose duties was the posting of men of the Home Guard to various units and that in the ordinary course of such duties, he posted defendant who resides at Sanson, to the Manawatu Battalion, the headquarters of which are in Sanson; (3) that defendant received due notices to parade at such headquarters and that he failed to attend any parades or to apply for exemption; and (4) that the Home Guard is incorporated with and is a part of the defence forces of New Zealand. Under the provisions of the Defence Act and the King’s Regulations, defendant was bound to observe and obey the lawful commands of his superior officers and he is also required by the Defence Emergency Regulations to undergo such military training as may be prescribed. “A clear prima facie case of disobedience of the provisions has been made out to my satisfaction and it lay on defendant to rebut such prima facie presumption by producing or reciting clear authority in support of his submission. This he failed to do. Defendant has been guilty of a flagr-

ant breach of the regulations and 1 find no merits whatever in his defence and in the excuses and explanations given in evidence. He says he is a trade union secretary with a district extending from Paekakariki to Mangaweka and that he is frequent-

ly absent from home. Whether such absences and hks duties would excuse him from fulfilling his obligations in the Home Guard, 1 am unable to say, i-.ut the point is that he did not think it worth while to apply for any exemption from parades.

“As this is, I think, tne first case of its kind in this district, the fine imposed will be much lighter than would otherwise have been the case.”