DEFENCE QUESTIONS LEGALITY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 277, 23 November 1945, Page 5

DEFENCE QUESTIONS LEGALITY

FAILURE OF MANOEUVRE Recd. 6 p.m. Nuremberg, Nov. 21. Counsel for the 20 defendants today challenged the legality of the war crimes trial on the grounds that it was constituted by a retroactive law. The Court asked the defendants to plead on the charges listed in the indictment when the trial reopened. The tribunal rejected the motion by the defence questioning its legality. Before the opening of the second day of the trial the defence filed a motion asking that the tribunal should secure from internationally recognised experts on international law an opinion about the legal basis of the trial.

As far as a crime against peace is concerned, the present trial has no legal basis in international law, but is based on a new nenal law which contradicts a legal principle which is cherished throughout the world,” the defence argued. "The principle is that pun.shment is only possible if a law is violated which existed at the time the act was committed, and which provided for that punishment. “This maxim has been one of the great principles of the nations, especially in the law of England since lhe Middle Ages, in the United States since its birth, in France since the Revolution, and also in Russia. “The counsellors for the defence are unanimously convinced that this trial could better serve the progress of the world if it did not withdraw from existing international law. The defence is also obliged to point out to the Judges that this Court is appointed only by one side—the side which is everything in one: creator of the law. prosecutor and judge. Dr. Otto Stahmer, counsel for Goering and senior counsel, brought in the motion or behalf of the defence counsellors, who all, except counsel for Schacht, also associated them-

salves with the recommendation that the ideal of neutral international tribunals had been realised in the Permanent Court of International Jus’ tice at The Hague. When the tribunal opened, Lord Justice Lawrence refused the plea of the defence to speak on the motion and directed the defendants to plead. He said the motion conflicted with the charter of the tribunal. Insofar as it contained other arguments which might be onen to the defendants would be heard later. Dr. Stahmer complained that counsel were not allowed to talk with defendants in the courtroom and requested nermission to do so. Ixird Justice Lawrence ruled that on the grounds of security consultations in the courtroom were permissible only in writing. Dr. Thoma, for Rose-berg, protested that he had not had time, during the night or the morning, to consul! his client and could rot plead until he was permitted to have consultation Lord Justice Lawrence no’nted out T hat counsel had bad weeks in which Io consult, but offered an adjournment of a quarter of an hour.

Hess, annarenllv suffering from another attack of abdominal ?ram r ' ••■as le f j from the Court one hour and 42 minutes after the trial reoneimd He returned six minutes later and sal down with biq head hnwrd.