BAIL REFUSED

Wairarapa Times-Age, 13 March 1941, Page 6

BAIL REFUSED

CASE. AGAINST OSTLER • & CHRISTIE EXPLANATION OF LEGAL POSITION. APPLICATION FOR COMMISSION TURNED DOWN. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH. March 12. Legal difficulties in the way of granting a release on bail so that they may prepare a case for the Court of Appeal hearing on Monday were explained to Harold Alexander Ostler and Travers Burnell Christopher Christie by Mr. Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court. Ostler and Christie, who were each sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on February 18 for attempting to publish a subversive statement, made their application at a special sitting of the Court.

The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. A. T. Donnelly, told his Honour that he had previously pointed out the difficulties that had arisen. The prisoners wished to conduct their own case in the Court of Appeal and the Crown was anxious that they should have the fullest facilities for doing so. If it were possible to agree to an application for bail the Attorney-General, Mr. Mason, would do so. Under the Emergency Regulations, to which attention had been been drawn, there was no power to grant bail. “May I point out,” he continued, “that this is not an application by the Crown, but by the prisoners. The course I suggest would be one of three. If the prisoners disagree with my opinion that there is no power for the Court to grant bail, I am quite prepared for them to stand down and hear argument later. The application could thus be stood over till this afternoon of the morning. The only other course is to supply the prisoners with every facility to prepare their case, either in Christchurch, or Wellington, and, if in Wellington, to send them there tonight.” The Crown, he added, was not objecting to bail. Ostler said that he was surprised by Mr. Donnelly’s statement. He was under the impression that the Attorne} r General had given his consent. His Honour: “There is nothing in the nature of a consent before me.”

COURT AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Mr. Donnelly: The Attorney-General would be willing to consider consent if he had the power, but he has not got it.” His Honour explained the difficulties under Section 442 of the Crimes Act. The machinery for passing a case from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal was prescribed. The Supreme Court might, at its discretion, either pass sentence and respite it at once or postpone sentence or, in their case, allow bail, but the the case of Brown v. Attorney-General it had been held that when the function of the Court was finished it no longer had power to respite sentence. His attention had been drawn to the emergency regulations. No consent to bail had been received from the AttorneyGeneral at the time of the trial and the prisoners were before him at a time when, in his opinion and subject to argument, he had no power to grant the application. It might be in the power of the Attorney-General to do so and he would express no opinion on the language of the clause, but consent now could not be a direction to the Court which, of course, could not take directions from the Attorney-Gen-eral. The Attorney-General might have power, continued his Honour, to direct the Superintendent of Prisons, but that was a function that could be performed outside the Court The Court could not be directed by the AttorneyGeneral to do something the Statute prohibited. “Our only hope, then, of obtaining release, is by direction of the Minister of Prisons to the superintendent of the gaol?” asked Ostler. His Honor: “The Attorney-General is the only person who can direct.” His Honour added that his opinions were not absolute and were subject to ' review.

Ostler said they would prefer an adjournment till the afternoon. He asked the judge to make available a newspaper reporter’s notes so that he and Christie might study his contentions. “No doubt the. reporters would be helpful, but I cannot control them,” replied his Honour. The case was then adjourned till 2.15 p.m., prisoners to confer with the registrar on the points raised. His Honour directed that the prisoners should be held in custody in town. During the adjournment an application was made for prisoners to the Crown Law Office, Wellington, for release on Parole under the Prisons Act. NO POWER TO GRANT BAIL.

“Mr. Donnelly said: “I am authorised to say that though there is no power to grant bail or release oh parole, facilities may be given them to consult documents or advisers as may be necessary for the preparation of their appeal." “I am concerned only with the application for bail, which must be refused,” said Mr. Justice Northtroft. "What happens now is a matter not for this Court, but for those who hold you in lawful custody.” Ostler asked for an adjournment till next day to await a reply to the application for release. Mr. Justice Northcroft: “You have already had your reply in Mr. Donnelly’s address.” The Attorney-General. Mr. Mason, has replied to Ostleifs request that a Royal Commission be sot up to investigate allegations made in the Supreme ' Court against the procedure of the police in gathering evidence for the trial. Mr. Mason's letter says: “With further reference to your letter of February 17 and the Prime Minister’s acknowledgement thereof, dated February 27. in relation to your application for the immediate setting up of a Royal Commission in connection with your case. I have to inform you that it has been decided that your request be declined.”