Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

APPEAL BOARD DIVIDED

Release Of Farmers For Army

(P.A.) AUCKLAND, August 19. A difference of opinion on the conduct of cases affecting the release of farmers from camp became evident between members of the No. 1 (Auckland) Armed Forces Appeal Board during a sitting at Pukekohe. The difference arose over the extent to which the Army viewpoint should be taken . into account by the board in reaching a decision in such cases. The chair-

man of the board was Mr C. R. Orr Walker, S.M., and the other members were Messrs A. M. Samuel and T. P. McCready. Mr F. J. Cox was the Crown representative.

The case under consideration was one in which the Army expressed an objection to the reservist’s release, and Mr Cox said the Army’s viewpoint had to be taken into consideration. Mr Samuel expressed the contrary view, and thought the board should act on the evidence as a whole. Similar views were expressed by Mr McCready. , „ , “Surely this board is not to be called upon to act as judge between the War Cabinet and the Army in these matters,” said Mr Sairiuel. “If so I do not agree' with the position and I do not like it.” Mr Cox said that a Government circular dealing with cases affecting the release of farmers stated that the Army viewpoint had to be taken into consideration" when a decision was to be reached. ARMY EVIDENCE WANTED Mr Samuel: In that case pie Army should give evidence in the witness box and should be subjected to crossexamination by counsel if necessary. It was explained that Lieutenant B. C. Hart was present as Army liaison officer, but if a cross-examination were to be conducted the commanding officer of every battalion would have to be present, as the applications covered many units. Mr Samuel replied that if justice depended on such a course nothing should prevent it. “Personally, I feel that I have to take notice of the Government circular, but my brother members disagree with me,” said the chairman. “It is the first time we have disagreed since we began our sittings. I think that in these crucial times the Army must receive every consideration, and if a soldier is regarded as a key man in his unit he should remain there, even at the cost of a few pounds of butterfat.” “This is a most unsatisfactory position,” said Mr M. R. Grierson, a Pukekohe solicitor, when the chairman pointed out that the Army need not necessarily act on the board’s recommendation for release. “The board’s word should be final to the Army or to anyone else. If the board makes a decision which is disregarded by the Army it is simply a case of the tribunal’s authority being flouted.” The secretary of the board, Mr G. Mortimer, stated that the Army had never rejected a recommendation from the No. 1 Armed Forces Appeal Board.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST19420820.2.17

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Southland Times, Issue 24827, 20 August 1942, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
485

APPEAL BOARD DIVIDED Southland Times, Issue 24827, 20 August 1942, Page 4

APPEAL BOARD DIVIDED Southland Times, Issue 24827, 20 August 1942, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert