NO ACTION

Wairarapa Times-Age, 7 May 1942, Page 3

NO ACTION

TO BE TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT

AGAINST MR J. ROBERTS.

STATEMENT BY MINISTER

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day

‘I have taken and intend to take no action in the matter,” said the Minister of Justice, Mr Mason, in the House of Representatives last night, replying to a question by Mr Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago); who had asked whether the Government had directed that action should be taken against Mr James Roberts, president of the New Zealand Labour Party, for remarks allegedly made by him at the recent conference of the Federation of Labour. Mr Bodkin pointed out that the Full Court, which had imposed fines on the “Standard” and the “Evening Post” for contempt of Court, had pronounced that “as there was apparently a prima facie ease against Mr Roberts appropriate action should be taken by the law officers of the Crown.” The statement made by the Court, Mr Mason said, was not and could not be part of the judgment, because the two questions answered in it —whether there was a prima facie case against Mr Roberts and what was the duty of the law officers of the Crown —had not been submitted to the Court for its determination. The Court had not stated categorically that there was a prima facie case against Mi- Roberts, but only that there was “apparently” such a case. After discussing the ways of dealing with alleged criminal contempt, the Minister said that, the essential facts of the present case were in serious dispute. Inquiries made had shown a definite conflict between the newspaper report and Mr Roberts. The report had not been a shorthand one, but admittedly a condensation, and as there was a conflict he was of the opinion that proceedings against Mr Roberts ought not to be taken. In his view it would have been vexatious to launch proceedings against anyone, whether Mr Roberts or anyone else, on siich material. “In instituting criminal proceedings against a person,” the Minister added, “evidence tending to show that he may be ..guilty is not enough. The evidence must be of such a character that on it the accused person ought to be convicted. In proceedings of the present nature this is especially true, for a protracted and doubtful struggle on such an issue could not really have enhanced the authority of the Court.” Mr Doidge (Opposition, Tauranga): So the uncrowned king can do no wrong.