FIVE MEN CHARGED.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 115, 13 April 1940, Page 9

FIVE MEN CHARGED.

THE PUBLICITY REGULATIONS. DECISION RESERVED. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, April 12. After two adjournments, tiie first charges laid under the Censorship and Publicity Emergency Regulations, 1939, were heard before the Magistrate, Air W. It. McKean, in the Police Court to-day. Five defendants appeared on summons, namely, Donald McCarthy, Cyril John Gould, Walter Ashton, William Goss Dickenson and Frank Simpson. The first lour are charged with the publication of subversive reports, either in a newspaper called The People’s Voice or in pamphlets. Simpson, who is a printer, is charged with publishing and printing subversive reports. Opening for tbe Crown, Air \. ItMeredith submitted that, firstly, the documents must be read as a whole to appreciate their, general character, purport, and probable effect. Mr Meredith said that the documents must also be read in the light of circumstances in which we were now living. “The British Empire is at war,” lie said, “and New Zealand, as part of the Empire, is also involved in that war. The Government, to whom is entrusted the control and welfare of this* Dominion, has solemnly declared the need for, and has . asked for, a large number of recruits. It is recognised that the war is one in respect of which our future national welfare, or indeed our very existence, may be at stake. It is of paramount importance that the effort to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion should not he hampered in the slightest degree. Any acts done, or any words spoken or written with a view to, or with the effect of, retarding and impeding the national effort arc in effect striking a more deadly blow than an active, open enemy could strike against us on the battlefields.” Air Meredith added that the gravity of the offences in the present cases, was that there were definite attempts to create in the minds of readers of tiie documents feelings that to fight was to make personal sacrifice of life for a cause that had no justice behind it, and in a war that was a deliberate creation by unscrupulous interests for their own particular benefit and financial gain. The direct result of such propaganda was to act adversely against recruiting and foster feelings of hostility to those conducting the war, and generally to attempt to stifle all desire to prosecute the war effort, thereby minimising the chances of ultimate success. The first case called was that of Dickenson, who pleaded not guilty through counsel. The five defendants are represented by three counsel, Messrs Hogben, Haig and Norris. CASE FOR DEFENCE.

Conducting Dickenson’s defence, Air Haigh said that the article entitled “For Peace” and published as a leaflet should be judged as a whole and not on isolated passages, and should also bo dealt with in the spirit of freedom and not of narrow criticism. The pamphlet dealt with peace, and could not promote disaffection. The desire for peace was not confined to the writer of the pamphlet, but was something that was also desired by a large section of the public. He averred that the regulations were not drawn up for the purpose of stifling every expression of criticism in the country. Air Hogben, for Gould, Ashton and McCarthy, said he did not intend to call evidence but to make a general address on their behalf. “It is difficult to imagine.” said Air Hogben, “how any weekly newspaper in New Zealand is going to interfere with the success of His Alajest-y’s forces overseas.” Disruption of the morale of the civil population was also charged against accused by the prosecution, but it was a very vague term and he failed to see how it could be proved that tbe reports mentioned could have that- result.

There had been an advance since the days of the Star Chamber, when citizens did not dare to mention the name of Royalty, said Air Hogben. Freedom of-expression, which was part of democracy, had extended widely in recent years. It was difficult to say where political opinion ended and

sedition began, but if the articles were capable of two interpretations they should be given that which aimed to achieve ends by constitutional means. Criticism of national and international politics and politicians bad been part of national life during the last few years, and the fact should be taken into account in the present case. The Alagistrate reserved his decision.