In re The Socialist Club, The Executive v. Two Meeting Organisers

The Socialist Club wished to organise a meeting to be addressed by Messrs Southwall and Brooks. The Executive obtained legal opinion and were advised that providing the two speakers confined themselves to the Emergency Regulations the meeting could be held. At the meeting copies of a resolution based on one of the legal opinions setting out the conditions was handed to each speaker both of whom did not confine themselves exclusively to the subject. Both speakers were not fully aware that they were expected to confine themselves to the Emergency Regulations.

The Executive decided that they had asked for legal opinion on an assurance from Messrs. Bollinger and Piper that speakers knew they were going to speak only on the Emergency Regulations and requested Messrs Bollinger and Piper to appear before them and explain.

At the meeting no conclusion was reached and the matter was concluded with the passing of the following resolution: "That this matter be closed."

The Emergency Regulations which have prevented Salient from publishing three articles are very wide sweeping. The penalties are severe and this incident emphasises how restrictive they are. It also emphasises how necessary it is to have assurance in writing where differences are likely.

If the Executive had insisted on the representatives of the Socialist Club putting their assurance in writing prior to seeking legal advice no confusion would have been possible.

Our Executive did not wish to expose the Association to the danger of being involved in a prosecution with a possibility of a substantial fine. When they asked for legal advice they did so on what they thought was an undertaking that the speakers knew or would be informed of their subject—Emergency Regulations only. At the meeting the speakers trespassed and the Executive rightly demanded an explanation.

The explanation and the complaint of the Executive finally resolved themselves in a question of one man's word against another's. The final result was not satisfactory.

It is not possible to exonerate the Socialist Club's representatives after hearing their attempt at explanation. Certainly the matter was serious enough for them to have had more care for the good of the Association either by making sure that the obligations of each party were clear or by strictly observing their undertaking. They knew the purpose of the Regulations and the purpose which the Executive had in mind. In this case it was not a matter of defending liberties but of causing an unsatisfactory situation to arise when common sense and reasonableness could have avoided it.