LIBEL WRIT ISSUED

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27396, 8 July 1954, Page 11

LIBEL WRIT ISSUED

Hearings May Be Interrupted

(Rec. 10 p.m.) MELBOURNE. July 7. Mr? W. J. V. Windeyer. senior counsel assisting the Royal Commission into Espionage in Australia, said today that a writ for alleged libel had been taken out against the Commonwealth and himself by Rupert Lockwood, who was under subpoena to appear before the Commission tomorrow. “It seems to me that the writ is attempting to hinder the inquiry and it is Lockwood's desire to avoid exposure or cross-examination,’’ said Mr Windeyer. Mr E. F. Hill, a Melbourne barrister, for Lockwood, said Mr Windeyer should not be given the opportunity to describe Lockwood’s motives. It was “pure speculation,'’ he added. Mr Justice Owen: I and my brother Judges have seen mention of a writ in the newspapers this morning. We trust Mr Windeyer will continue to assist us. Mr Windeyer: I propose to continue as if the writ had not been issued. Mr Hill slid that on June 30, Mr Windeyer had said that evidence would show that Lockwood, a Sydney journalist, was the author of document J. (In Canberra. Mr Windeyer described Document J, which, he said, was the work of an Australian who visited the Soviet Embassy and typed it there—as a “farrago of facts, falsities, and tilth.”) A High Court writ covering the matter had been issued out of the High Court yesterday, Mr Hill said. It was contempt of the High Court to proceed with the hearing. Mr Justice Owen: Contempt by us? —By the Commission. Mr Hill said he had had no opportunity to consider the implications. He suggested that the commission should not proceed until the matter had been

Mr Justice Owen: We are not a Court. We are merely a commission of inquiry set up under a Federal statute to investigate a report on certain matters. It is not for us to rule whether or not any particular statement by counsel assisting the commission or whether investigation of any particular matter would or would not be a contempt of the High Court. That is a matter for the High Court to determine. Mr Hill: I am not in the position to argue the legal question involved. He added that a similar situation arose in relation to a Royal Commission comprising three Judges of the Victorian Supreme Court. The case arose out of certain allegations of corruption. The view was taken that the commission would be in contempt of the Supreme Court out of which a writ was issued covering the subject matter of the inquiry. The Judges had refused to proceed. Mr Justice Philp: Were they sitting as judges or commissioners? —As commissioners. Mr Justice Owen said the commission was not required to decide whether the commission, or Mr Windeyer, was in contempt of the High Court. “Our present view is that unless a Court of competent jurisdiction directs us to cease to make inquiries, the inquiries should proceed in the ordinary way.” He said the commission was prepared to adjourn the inquiry until 10 a.m. tomorrow to give him some opportunity to examine the matters. Mr Justice Ligertwood said he hoped personally that there would be no further application for an adjournment wh**n the hearing resumed. M; Hill: I don’t propose to give any undertaking.

Roval Tour 1.750.000 people have seen the film of the Royal Commonwealth tour “Flight of the White Heron.’’ vrhich is being shown at 50 British cinemas. The film wiF be screened indoflnitelv in the West End of London where it h»s been seen bv more than 135.000 Londoners.—London, July 6. _______