APPEAL UPHELD

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 238, 5 July 1944, Page 3

APPEAL UPHELD

Prosecution Under Finance Act The Chief Justice ((Sir Michael Myers), in the Supreme Court, Wellington, on Monday, upheld an appeal by Paul Dorby Trickett, manufacturers’ agent., Wellington, against a decision of Mr. Stilwell, S.M., who had convicted-and lined appellant £35 and .£3/13/- costs for failing to comply with certain requirements under Section .2 of the Finance Act (No. 3), 1943. The requirements had been set out in a letter from George Laurence, an investigator for the Ministry of Supply. The magistrate, in stating a case for the Court, said it was proved upon the hearing, that Trickett, had supplied large .quantities of oil-coat dressing to J. J. MoCaskey and Son Ltd.-, but it was not proved that be was a subcontractor in respect of any Government contract, and had not merely sold oil-eoat dressing in the ordinary course of business to J. J. McCloskey and Son .Ltd. At the hearing it was stated by counsel for Trickett, that it would tend to incriminate him- if be answered questions in tlic letter from the investigating officer for the Ministry of Supply, but the magistrate determined that there was no analogy between privilege claimed by a witness in Court proceedings and a similar claim respecting an administrative act —the lodging of a requisition such as that served on Trickett, and that the claim of privilege ou the ground of seifincrimination was not a defence to the offence charged in the information.

Mr. D. R. Hoggard appeared for appellant, and Air. A. E-. Currie for respondent. Laurence.

Mr. Hoggard, in opening the case for appellant, said there was absolutely nothing to connect these goods with the goods which were, intended to be covered by the inquiry directed to Trickett. He, at the hearing, had demanded- the production of the contract, which counsel for the Crown had' refused, remarking that counsel for Trickett was merely ou a fishing expedition. His Honour: Bid not, the magistrate demand production of the contract? Air. Hoggard: The magistrate stated that oral evidence could be given as to the contract.

His Honour:’ A Government department is there to see that justice is done, just a« the Court is. Continuing, Air. Hoggard submitted that the remote history of raw materials sold, after several failures, to the Government by another party, had no relation to the contract. Air. Currie, for respondent, said Hie con tract-was a written one, aud its terms could be proved orally when they were not in question. “In my opinion, this appeal may be dealt with upon a simple point." said his Honour, in delivering oral judgment. “Before appellant could be r-onvieted, it -was necessary to prove the existence of a Government coutrncl. Thi’re was. no proof before the uiagistraL' of the existence of any such contract.” With regard to the sections of Hie Act, which gave prnver to search m-coitnls. his Honour said those protisions could not be read Io give the wide powers whiob the department concerned contended the.v did, and they bad to bo read in a restricted sense. 'His Honour said lie was not. deciding the second question raised, which invoiced xvhclher or not appellant was a person whose books the Treasury, Controller or Auditor-General was entitled to examine, or from whom they were entitled to require any .information or particulars, such as were referred to in respondent's letter Io appellant. It was sufficient to say that on tli,> first point raised appellant was entitled to succeed, and the appeal must be allowed. “The refusal of counsel for Hie Crown to produce the contract before Hie magistrate is to be deprecated and deplored." bis Honour concluded. Costs amounting to £lO were allowed .'ippellant.