DECISION RESERVED

Wairarapa Times-Age, 13 April 1940, Page 4

DECISION RESERVED

ALLEGED SUBVERSIVE REPORTS AUCKLAND HEARING. SUBMISSIONS BY DEFENCE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, April 12. In the case in which Donald McCarthy, Cyril John Gould. Walter Ashton. William Goss Dickenson and Frank Simpson were charged, the first four with the publication of subversive reports and Simpson, a printer, with publishing and printing subversive reports, the Crown Prosecutor, Mr V. R. Meredith said that the gravity of the offences in the present cases was that there were definite attempts to create in the minds of readers of the 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. Conducting Dickenson's defence, Mr Haigh said 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. Mr Hogben, for Gould, Aston and McCarthy, said: “It is difficult to imagine how any weekly newspaper in New Zealand is going to interfere with the success of His Majesty’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 the reports mentioned could have that result. 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 had been part of national life during the past few years, and that fact should be taken into account in the present case. The magistrate reserved his decision.