YOUNG'S CASE,

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1924, 5 December 1913, Page 8

YOUNG'S CASE,

THE TEXT OF THE DECISION. Mr. Riddell's judgment in Young's case ran as follows:—"Defendant ' is charged that, on October 26, 1913, at Wellington, ho wilfully incited divers unknown persons to resist constables stationed in Wellington in the execution of their duty. It has been proved that defendant used tho words contained in the information in the course of a speech delivered by him to a large ei'owd of waterside workers and other persons at tho Basin Reserve on the abovo date. Evidence lias been called to show that immediately prior to Qc* tobcr 26 tho waterside workers on strike and their sympathisers ha-d taken possession of tho waterfront, in Wellington, had prevented owners of propertv from handling it there, had intimidated and insulted persons who wero prepared to handlo cargo on tho wharves, and that tho ordinary police force was powerless te prevent intimidation and acts of violence. It was common . knowledge that at this timo tho Government had increased the number of tho regular polico and were organising a force of special constables to assist in the preservation of law and order in tho city. On October 26, tho defendant, among others, addressed a largo''gathering of persons on tho general stato of affairs at the waterfront, and in tho course of his address made reference to special constables.

Full Meaning of the Wolds. "To gather tho full meaning of tho words mentioned in the information mid used by tho defendant, it is necessary to bear in mind the state of affairs existing prior to tho meeting and to road tho defendant's remarks immediately preceding the particular words in tho charge. These are: —"I want- to say that special constables arc being called for; a number of them were inarched to tho Newtown depot last night. I want to say this, that if tho police force of this country arc going to bo utilised—l know tho individual police don't want to bo used for the purposebut if the authorities of 'the country arc going to use them to suppress the working class, I will undertake—wo will undertake—to mass in this City of Wellington 10,000 or 15,000 armed men ready to protect themselves as armed men. If a polico constable uses his baton to you give him one back, and if one won t do mako it a double-header. "Tho immediately succccdina words used by defendant must also be considered as determining the- meaning of the particular words in tho charge. Theso arc: —

If wc have got to fight police and tho military, it has got to bo done in style and effectually. It is a very easy indeed, etc. If I have.-got to incite tho multitude, I will incite them, and in a proper manner. Maximum Penalty—Thrss Months. "Evidence has been given of later events in which tho strikers were concorned, and it is common knowledgethat a state of insecurity existed in tho City for somo days after October 20, and in some cases special constables were attacked and the police resisted in their attempts to preserve order. There is no direct- evidence, however, to connect defendant with any of these, later disturbances. Section OS of tho Police Offences Act, 190S, enumerates a number of acts which constitute offences against tho police when acting in the execution of their doty. The words of the section which define the offenci alleged .to have been committed by defendant are:— "If any person wilfully incites any person to resist any constable in "tho execution of his duty, sne'h person may bo taken into custody without warrant by any constable, ; and on conviction shall bo liable to a finu not exceeding £W, or to imprisonment for any term not- exceeding three months." Law Aspect of the Case, "For the defence it is contended that ait incitement under Section G3 must 1)0 an incitement of a person or persons to resist a particular constable actually performing some act in the execution of his duty at the time of the incitement, ittVl that, as defendant's words were addressed generally to a crowd of person-; who were not interfering with any member of the police in the execution of his duty, the use of them docs not constitute- an offence within the ivnrd-i of the section. The argument is illustrated by referring to the case of the arrest of an offender in the street, by a constable, followed by interference on tiic part of a bystander. No doubt ail tlie elements of the oifence under the section are present on such an occasion, but in stressing the- importance of the words, 'in the execution of Ids duly.' and the time when the inciting must take place, 1 think counsel has placed too narrow an interpretation on the words of the section. A constable may act in the execution of his duty, although he is not arresting an offender. A constable acts in the execution or his duty when ho is on his beat in tho public street, or when he is present at a public meeting to preserve order if required. Ho cannot use his baton at pleasure, even when on duty, but only illicit occasion arises and it becomes necessary for him to do so. Tho canons that Cuido, "Two canons of construction are applicable:—(lV Thai the words of the section must receive such an iiitcrpre-

tatiou. us will carry out tho intention of the Legislature.

(2) That, as the section is a penal one it must bo construed strictly, so that the Act of the defendant may como exactly within its words without, any strain being placed upon their meaning. Cases have been cited to show that, before a person can become liable- for obstructing a, constabio in tho exsculion of his duty there must be an offence, committed, or in the course of being committed, at the same lime. There Is, however, n difference between obstructing and inciting, and the question is, 'Can tho offence of inciting he complete without; i;eiug committed" simultaneously with some other offence which provides the object or reason for the incitement?' Apparently it can, and ou the authority of llegina v. slost, where it was hcltl_tliat the publication and circulation uf si newspaper article may bo an encouragement or endeavour to persuade to murder . . . . although not addressed to any person in particular. If such a publication is an olfence, I think that considering tho condition of law and order which there existed, tho particular words addressed by the defendant to a mixed crowd ou October 2G constituted an ofi'euco within tho meaning of Section OS. Defendant will be convicted."

Penalty—Hires Monttis and Sureties. Upon concluding tho reading of his judgment, His Worship remarked: "Tho question of penalty lias to bo considcied. On Saturday last the Chief Juslice imposed certain penalties on two members of tho rank and file w.ho had been engaged in theso industrial mattors. Considering tho sentences that wore, imposed, and considering that the defendant, is a leader, he will bo sentenced to three months' imprisonment." 11 is Worship went on to say that Young woidd also be required to enter into a bond of £250 to keep the peace for twelve months, and to find two sureties of £2o(J each. young's Lawyer Rises. Mr. Wilford: In behalf of the- accused, 1 give, formal notice, of appeal, on t,ho ground that Your _ Worsnip's judgment ifi erroneous in. point of law. His Worship: I anticipated that, no matter which way tho decision wont, it would he necessary to have a, ruling ou tho point. His Worship then fixed the amount of bail at .i'ldO, with two sureties of £75 each, Mr. Wilford: When the notice of appeal is given you will admit that he is bailable as a right. His Worship: Quite so. Mr. Wilford: Will you fix the amount of security for appeal? His Worship: Yes—ten guineas. Referring, to the fact that tho Magistrate had required sureties of the peacein addition to imposing a sentence, Mr. Wilford asked: Does your Worship contend that you have power to do that? His Worship: Certainly, under tho Justice of the Peace Act, Mr, Wilford: It is not for me to argue that now. His Worship: It can all be raised. Sir. Wilford: Yes, it can all be raised later. Does your Worship know that certain magistrates have made representations to havo this power inserted? His Worship: I hold that it exists now. Mr. Wilford: Does your Worship held that he requires to find tho sureties of tho peace now? His Worshin: Oh no! Ten guineas. Mr. WilforcT: Oh! • His Worship: Tho sureties nvo part of tho penalty. Mr. "Wilford: I sec! Then he can get out on bail? His Worship: Yes. Later in tho day the question of bail for Young was discussed and tho arrangement mentioned in' the introduction to these cases was arrived at,