UNDER REVIEW

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 166, 9 April 1921, Page 8

UNDER REVIEW

COURT-MARTIAL FINDING

CASE OF PRIVATE THOMPSON

ROYAL COMMISSION OPENS

The preliminary phases of the sequel to a much-discussed court-martial were enacted in the old Parliamentary Buildings yesterday morning, when a Royal Commission was opened on the case of Private Henry Harsant Thompson. Thompson, who was formerly a private in the N.Z.E.F., was fried by courtmartial at Featherston Camp on September 27, 1917, upon a charge of knowingly making a false accusation against n superior officer, Dr. Francis Rudolph Hotop, and was found ‘guilty, and sentenced to undergo detention for 112 days. Subsequently Thompson petitioned Parliament that the records of his conviction be expunged from all military records, and that he be granted compensation in respect thereof. The petition was referred by a committee of the House for favourable consideration, and the upshot was the setting up of a Royal Commission to inquire into and report on the proceedings of the said court-martial. .

The Commissioner, Mr. T; F. Martin, presided. Mr. A. F. Hogg appeared for the petitioner, Thompson, and Mr. A. Fair, of the Crown Law Office, for the Crown. Colonel Andrews represented the Defence Department Order of Reference.

The order of reference directed the Commissioner to inquire as follows:— ’ (I) Whether there was anything in tjie personality of .the said court-martial oi otherwise in regard to its constitution or procedure rendering it open to any objection on the part of the accused. (2) Whether there was evidence to support the judgment arrived at by the said court-martial, and whether the judgment was such as a reasonable body of men acting as a court-martial could properly have arrived at. (3) Whether the Commission, review '•ng the judgment of the said court and the evidence before it,, -it nil hearing such new evidence as it might think tit to allow, was of the opinion that the judgment of the said court-martial was one which the Commission considered ought to be confirmed, reversed, or varied, and to what extent. At the outset the Commissioner said that as the subject matter of the inquiry was in the nature of an appeal from the decision of a Court, he considered it should be open to the Press and to the public. He ruled accordingly. Evidence, he said, would be taken nt a later sitting. On behalf of Thompson, Mr.' Hogg said it was admitted that the court-martial was properly constituted, no that paragraph (1) need not, therefore, be inquired into, so far as his side was concerned. As regards paragraph (.2), he submitted that this placed the Crown in the position of justifying the court-mar-tial. as it did not Cast ,the onus ou Thompson of'appealing agaiwtl it. Counsel went on to complain of the serious [ delay in the institution of. the present} proceedings, stating that Parliament had' been petitioned, in the matter as early as 1919. Another point was that, even assuming its report, was favourable to petitioner, the Commission apparently had no power to make un award in Hie matter of compensation. Air. Fair Stated that there could lie no question that any recommendation of the Commission would be acted upon. Mr. Hogg: Well, we have already had .one favourable recommendation. Mr Fair: And it has been acted on.

Missing Witnesses.

Mr. Hogg proceeded to raise a few points with regard to evidence. It was some three and a’ half years since the original court-martial, and at that time Thompson bad six witnesses ready to give evidence as to Hotop s reputation and specific instances of drunkenness on the latter’s part whilst- he was on duty. Thompson, however, was debarred from calling that evidence at the court-mar-tial. and although he had the names of his witnesses, he had, except in one case, been unable to ascertain their present addresses and whereabouts. The names of the five witnesses he could not now produce were: Sergeant Blackwell, Records, Featherston; Sergeant SturgesS, orderly in officers' mess, Featherston; Sergeant Harris, Details, !• eatherstou; Private Arbuckle, Records; Private S.

Thompson, Dental Corps. For all petitioner knew, these men might now be dead. Counsel added that he had roughly briefed the evidence of these witnesses at the time. He desired permission to give through Thompson evidence as to what the evidence of the misaing witnesses would have been. Thompson would also call one or two witnesses to substantiate their story. Counsel asked the Commissioner’s ruling on tho point, and for permission, if necessary, to have the legal aspect reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Commissioner said that when the matter cropped up at tho next sitting he would rule that lie was not strictly bound by the legal rules of evidence. At the same time he would draw the line

where he thought fit. Mr. Fair said that the Crown desired to place every facility in the. way of Thompson to produce every piece of evidence possible. The only thing he (counsel) wished to block was evidence which it was impossible to check in any way and evidence which was “hearsay of hearsay.” Mr./ Hogg: We don’t in any case propose producing “-hearsay of hearsay” evidence. The Commissioner: The only difficulty can see is that these witnesses cannot be cross-examined. Air. Fair said that the two witnesses Mr. Hogg was going to call might be sufficient for his case, and in that case hearsay evidence need not- go on record at all.

The Commissioner: You could _ call your two witnesses, AJ r. Hogg, and then confer with Mr. Fair on the other print. Counsel agreed to let' the matter rest at this for tho present. Colonel Andrews asked petitioner whether ho had attempted to trace the missing witnesses through Base Records. Petitioner replied that, ns showing the value of appealing to the military for such information, the military themselves had appealed to him, ns secretary of the Hmne Service League, to endeavour to trace the whereabouts of every ex-home service man.

Colonel Andrews: I suggest that he could have, at the time, probably obtained the addresses of these men. on their discharge. Sulwequeiit addresses of discharged men are, of course, not retained by the military. A Divorce Case Recalled.

The question of the desirableness of calling Mts. Hotop, who since th? courtmartial obtained a divorce from Captain Hotop, on tho grounds, it was stated, of habitual drunkenness, was next discussed at some length. Mr. Hogg said that his client did not want to humiliate Airs. Ifoiop by calling hor as a witness, and he would ask the Commissioner’s ruling as to tho advisability of admitting the Supreme Court records in the Hotop divorce case. The question was asked whether Hotop was still in New Zealand. Colonel Andrews stated that he was on the medical register at Denniston, but witness had been informed that ho left for Sydney quite recently. Mr. Fair, in stating that he saw no reason why Mrs. Hotop should not be called, said that, her evidence in the Supremo Court was given wjlhnut anybody appearing for Hot-op. Tn the main

it was probably correct, but there were certain essential details as to dates bearing on the present, case which had not been adduced.

Tho Commissioner said that he could accept without evidence tire bare fact that the decree was made on the grounds of habitual drunkenness. Air. Fair stated that the Crown would insist that if Airs. HolOp’s evidence was required she must be asked to appear before the Commission.

In reply to Air. Fair, All-. Hogg Said that he was quite willing to admit the whole of the evidence given at the courtmartial by the witnesses for tho prosecution. Be would, however, make an exception in the ease of Major Robertson, whom ho desired to be called. Colonel Andrews said ho wished to take the opportunity of denying- tho suggestion appearing in some newspapers, and also mentioned in Parliament, that some of the officers connected with tho case were of German extraction.

In answer to a point, raised by MrFair, Mr. Hogg said he was prepared Io admit that Hotop was a qualified and skilful medical officer. “We recognise.” ho added, “that there was some special merit in Hotop’s services, otherwise he would not have been retained.

The inquiry was then adjourned till April 28.