BANNED NEWSPAPERS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 88, Issue 95, 22 April 1944, Page 5

BANNED NEWSPAPERS

CASE BEFORE COURT BENCH RULED THAT IT WAS ALREADY DECIDED MUCH LEGAL AND PUBLIC INTEREST AROUSED. (By Tclegruph—PreiM Association—Cupyrlxht; Recd. 11.45 p.m. Sydney, April 21. When motions by four Sydney newspapers for injunctions against the Commonwealth and its censors were called in the High Court to-day, the Bench held unanimously that these matters had been disposed of last Monday, and there was nothing before the Court with which it could deal. Last Monday Sydney newspapers were granted an interim injunction restraining the censors from prohibiting the publication of certain articles dealing with censorship. On that day all four Sydney dailies had been suppressed for failure to comply with censorship instructions. To-day, Mr. Claude Weston, K.C., for the applicant newspapers, said that the articles named in the injunction applications had since been published, and, as the objects the proprietors of the newspapers had had in view had been achieved fully, the question of cdsts was all tha’t remained. He said that the principle for which the newspapers had contended had been established. After considerable legal argument the Court finally told Mr. Barwick, K.C., for the respondents, that as he was anxious to expedite the trial of the issues involved—as distinct from the injunction—he could make a later application to the Court to have a hearing date fixed. Probably the greatest array of senior counsel ever associated with the conduct of any one case, or consolidated suit in Australia, assembled in the High Court to conduct the actions which were launched t by Sydney daily newspapers and sections of the Melbourne Press, to test the legality of the ban on publication of certain articles in those newspapers, and the suppressing of certain editions. Eleven King’s Counsel were at the Bar table, together with their juniors. The Court was packed to overflow. A number of barristers and solicitors not actually participating in the case attended to hear argument and a further testing of the legality of censorship powers to suppress the articles and editorials referred to.

The Bench rejected a submission by counsel for the Commonwealth that Monday’s restraining injunction against the censors had not been granted on the newspapers’ application, but had merely been imposed as a condition on which last Monday’s adjournment was granted. To-day’s proceedings in the High Court mean that as the interim injunction against the Commonwealth and its censors expires to-day, and as the plaintiff newspapers have achieved their object in publishing the articles and editorials suppressed earlier in the week, the newspapers did not ask for an additional injunction. The action to test the legality of the censorship regulations by newspapers and the action for damages are still pending. Costs in the injunction were reserved for the hearing of the action, probably early in May.