CROWD DOCUMENTS

Evening Star, Issue 22448, 19 September 1936, Page 10

CROWD DOCUMENTS

PRODUCTION IN COURT CASES PRIYILEBE QUESTION DISCUSSED [Pbk United Press Association.! WELLINGTON, September 18. In a Supreme Court action at Gisborne in April Herbert Victor Lunken, ' as a ratepayer of the borough, of Gisborne, brought an action a %^ st Gisborne Fire Board and members ot the Local Bodies’ Loans Board to set aside the Loans Board s decision sanctioning the raising of a loan by the Gisborne Fire Board, prohibiting the Fire Board from acting on that decision, and preventing the Fire Board from raising and spending money in pursuance of the loan proposals.. During the hearing of the case the Loans Board was called on to produce for inspection certain documents, but this was objected to on the ground that the Minister of Finance had instructed that the documents were pnviActing Chief Justice (Sir John Reed), however, made an order for the inspection of the documents, with the proviso that, if after inspection by him any were found to be detrimental to the Public Service, a supplementary order withdrawing these from inspection , would be made. , . , The Appeal • Court to-day is hearing an appeal against this decision by the Loans Board. Advancing his argument for the appellant Loans Board, Mr' Currie made the following submissions with regard to the production of documents: —(1) That there was a distinction between cases where the Crown was a party and where it was not.. (2) That there was a further distinction where the Crown was a party in its administrative capacity and where it was a party, in the discharge of some trading capacity. (3) That' information was privileged whether it was in the form of documents or not. (4) That it was immaterial if the claim for privilege impeded the judge in examining the facts of the case or if it hampered one of the . litigants. “ Private mischief must give way to public convenience,” said counsel. It was submitted that the question of privilege came under three headings: (1) Cases which called for intervention by the courts themselves to stop the production of documents;. (2) cases which called for intervention by the crcecutive; (3) cases which called for the court’s intervention to override the claim of privilege where it had been wrongly or unjustifiably made. Mr Justice Ostler: How can the court say the executive- is wrong unless U has a look at the document? Counsel: Extraneous circumstances may help.. Mr Justice Ostler: Yes; but are there any here'? Counsel: No. The court adjourned till Monday.