1 0 , 5 0 1 .

RUMPFF J; Not n e c e s s a r i l y . 1

KENNEDY J; I t may "be wrongly based.

MR. FISCHER; Something l i k e t h o s e pleaded, my

l o r d s . May I r e f e r your l o r d s h i p s t o lH ! , "By e x p l o i t i n g

the l o c a l gr ievances of t h e i r members, such as gr ievances

i n connection v/ith bus f a r e s , r e n t s , housing, unemploy- 5

ment of n a t i v e s i n shops i n predominantly n a t i v e l o c a l i t i e s ,

w i t h . t h e ob jec t of obtaining t h e i r support f o r the a c h i e v e -

ment and implementation of i t s p o l i c y " . Now, t h i s was never

i n my submission thought of - i t was never i n the Crown's

mind as being a gr ievance which was being e x p l o i t e d , and 10

the Crown does not now seek t o prove a gr ievance being

e x p l o i t e d . I t seeks t o prove that the speakers were

l i a r s , were us ing t h e i r i n v e n t i v e powers t o c r e a t e h o s t i -

l i t i e s ^ which i s an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t c a s e .

RUMPFF J; W e l l , assume t h a t the e v i d e n c e about 15

r e n t s had been u n s p e c i f i e d by one or two speakers at meet-

i n g s , suggest ing to the audience that a c e r t a i n rent had

been increased t o a c e r t a i n amount; that had been s a i d

on a number of o c c a s i o n s , and the Crown a l s o sought t o

prove on that p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e t h a t i n f a c t there was 20

never such an i n c r e a s e i n r e n t , and t o prove circumstances

- that the speakers knew t h a t , or ought t o have kncwn that -

MR. FISCHER; Because i t ' s not an i s s u e on the

Indictment, my l o r d . I t ' s simply outside of the I n d i c t -

ment a l t o g e t h e r . 25

RUMPFF J; But the i s s u e , whether i t was ex-

p l o i t e d or not may depend on whether the speaker b e l i e v e d

i t or not - h i s mental s t a t e of e x p l o i t a t i o n . . .

KENNEDY Ji May not a d e l i b e r a t e misrepresen-

t a t i o n amount t o e x p l o i t a t i o n ? 30

1 0 , 5 0 2 .

MR. FISCHERs My l o r d , e i t h e r there i s e x p l o i t a -

t i o n or there i s n ' t , and that i s i r r e s p e c t i v e of the s t a t e

of mind - e n t i r e l y i r r e s p e c t i v e of the s t a t e of mind of

the speaker. I f the s p e a k e r ' s mind can be made r e l e v a n t -

that i s t o say a s t a t e of mind i n which the speaker wishes

to l i e , i f i t can be made re levant then i t must be made

r e l e v a n t on the Indictment and i n t h e P a r t i c u l a r s . I t ' s

not part and p a r c e l of the h o s t i l e i n t e n t which has been

pleaded wi th regard to Treason. H o s t i l e i n t e n t i s t o

enter i n t o an agreement w i t h the other c o n s p i r a t o r s t o

overthrow the S t a t e .

RUMPFF J ; But i h regard t o e x p l o i t a t i o n , Mr.

F i s c h e r , we have heard the evidence brought a l s o by cross

examination of Crown w i t n e s s e s , t h a t f o r i n s t a n c e the

A.N.C. was the o r g a n i s a t i o n which i n t e r e s t e d i t s e l f i n

the problems of the A f r i c a n s , t h e i r own problems.

MR. FISCHER; That i s s o , my l o r d .

RUMPFF Js Now a p a r t i c u l a r speech about rent

might be a p e r f e c t l y bona f i d e speech i n the i n t e r e s t s

of the o r g a n i s a t i o n qua o r g a n i s a t i o n looking a f t e r the

i n t e r e s t s of the A f r i c a n s , aida speech concerning the

audience, as members who are i n t e r e s t e d i n the question

of r e n t . Then t h a t speech as such may be a p e r f e c t l y

bona f i d e speech, i t has nothing t o do with High Treason

or an u l t e r i o r motive, i f I may put i t that way. But

i f the Crown seeks t o br ing evidence about a speech

concerning r e n t , which according to the evidence i s a

matter which conerns the A.N.C. and i t s members and

A f r i c a n s g e n e r a l l y - r e n t i n the l o c a t i o n s f o r i n s t a n c e ,

and i t seeks t o prove t h a t the speaker as a member of

10 ,503 .

the A.N.C. f a l s e l y accused the a u t h o r i t i e s of having ra ised

the r e n t , i s n ' t the Crown then t r y i n g t o show t h a t i t has

not? The t o p i c of r e n t was explo i ted w i t h gr ievance - rent

as a t o p i c was e x p o i t e d . I t was not a t a l l a bona f i d e meet

i n g , or a "bona f i d e d i s c u s s i o n of t h e t o p i c . I t was an

e x p l o i t a t i o n because he w i l f u l l y misrepresented the f a c t ,

and f o r t h a t reason the Crown says ' I say t h i s i s e x p l o i t a -

t i o n ; i f I don't l ead that evidence i t ' s no e x p l o i t a t i o n 1 .

•I have dozens of meetings where there was a mere discus -

s ion of r e n t s ; I 'm not concerned w i t h t h o s e , I 'm concerned

w i t h my a l l e g a t i o n of an e x p l o i t a t i o n , and I say t h a t he

e x p l o i t e d that because he had a c e r t a i n s t a t e of mind and

h i s s t a t e of mind i s t o be i n f e r r e d from the f a c t that

he was misrepresent ing the c a s e ' . ' T h a t ' s the only

evidence that I h a v e ' , s a y s the Crown ' o f t h i s man's s t a t e

of mind! He's d e a l i n g w i t h a t o p i c which i s an innocent

t o p i c .

MR. F E C I j E R ; My l o r d s , w i t h r e s p e c t . . . .

RUMPPF Js Must the Crown then have said i n

i t s P a r t i c u l a r s ftnd by e x p l o i t a t i o n I mean, i n t e r a l i a ,

the m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of f a c t " ?

MR. FISCHER: Y e s , my l o r d , wi th r e s p e c t because

e x p l o i t a t i o n means making use of - - i t does not mean

misrepresent ing , i t does not mean l y i n g , one cannot i n

ordinary E n g l i s h be s a i d t o e x p l o i t a s i t u a t i o n by l y i n g

about i t . I f I e x p l o i t a s i t u a t i o n I use t h a t s i t u a t i o n .

In other words, i f rents have been r a i s e d , and i n s t e a d

of r emaining s i l e n t on the point whenev®1 I make a speech,

I r e p e a t e d l y come back t o the quest ion of r e n t s , then I

am e x p l o i t i n g the r i s e i n rents i n order t o do p r e c i s e l y

what the Crown says at page 68, "by e x p l o i t i n g l o c a l

1 0 , 5 0 4 .

l o c a l gr ievances of t h e i r members w i t h the o b j e c t of ob-

t a i n i n g t h e i r support1! Now, my l o r d s , t h a t being the

s p e a k e r ' s o b j e c t , the quest ion i s not whether he b e l i e v e d

what he s a i d , whether he doubted what he s a i d , or whether

he knew what he sa id was untrue. I t i s us ing something

t o g a i n support . That i s , i n my submission, the meaning

of the word e x p l o i t a t i o n used i n t h i s c o n t e x t . Just

imagine, my l o r d s , the s u r p r i s e w i t h which the Defence

i n a c i v i l case would f i n d i t s e l f faced i f d e a l i n g w i t h

the word e x p l o i t , the a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h a t person e x -

p l o i t e d something, had t o deal w i t h a case of f raudulent

m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , that on such and such a day the said

A when i n f a c t he knew t h a t i t was B.

BEKKF,E J ; Do you suggest t h a t the use of t h e

word e x p l o i t a t i o n goes no f u r t h e r than the word used.

MR. FISCHER; Used w i t h a purpose . . i t cannot

i n c l u d e an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t one of the speakers , accused

No.25 say - t h a t on the 4th A p r i l , 1954, he s a i d A , B

C, when he w e l l khew i t to be u n t r u e , and t h a t the t r u t h

was X, Y , Z , and t h a t 9 my l o r d , i s p r e c i s e l y how t h i s

case has "been conducted f o r the past s i x months. There

has been no suggest ion of a speaker saying something and

meaning something e l s e , and the opening which t h i s would

g i v e would be enormous f o r an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t approach,

but may I j u s t complete t h i s p i c t u r e , my l o r d s , and r e -

f e r your l o r d s h i p s j u s t by way of i l l u s t r a t i o n t o a

p o r t i o n of the P o l i c y Schedule . Any port ion would serve

but I'm r e f e r r i n g t o paragraph C ( l ) on page 29. "The

A,ET.C. f u r t h e r implemented i t s p o l i c y of making use of

extra-Par l iamentary u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and i l l e g a l a c t i o n

by organis ing and p a r t i c i i a t i n g i n c e r t a i n campaigns

1 0 , 5 0 5 .

a g a i n s t c e r t a i n l a w s , and by i n c i t i n g and encouraging t h e

n a t i v e populat ion t o i l l e g a l and v i o l e n t r e s i s t a n c e on a

mass s c a l e a g a i n s t the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and enforcement of

the laws . " And then i t deals w i t h the Acts and s a y s ;

"The f a c t that the said campaigns were intended by the

A.N.C. t o i n v o l v e v i o l e n c e , i s i n f e r r e d from the f o l l o w -

i n g ; and there are the speeches." Now, i t ' s never said

t o be i n f e r r e d from the f a c t that the speaker t o l d an un-

t r u t h . That i s e n t i r e l y absent from t h i s c a s e .

BEKKER J; I 'm not v e r y w e l l acquainted w i t h

the Indictment at t h i s s t a g e , Mr. F i s c h e r . On the ques-

t i o n of h o s t i l e i n t e n t , were P a r t i c u l a r s asked f o r and

suppl ied?

MR. FISCHER; My l o r d , on the quest ion of v i o l -

ence they were.

BEKKER J; H o s t i l e i n t e n t ? Was the Crown ask-

ed for p a r t i c u l a r s on which i t would seek t o j u s t i f y the

a l l e g a t i o n of h o s t i l e i n t e n t ?

MR. FISCHER; Ho, my l o r d , i t w a s n ' t . The

matter was r a i s e d on the f i r s t Indictment, but i t was

not r a i s e d a t a l l on the second. I t was l e f t at l a r g e

of course .

BEKKER J ; Have you completed your argument

on the overt a c t s as pleaded, e x c l u d i n g t h i s e v i d e n c e ?

Because I want to put t o you on the quest ion of h o s t i l e

i n t e n t , whether t h i s evidence i s admiss ib le?

MR. FISCHER; TOLL, I th ink I ' v e covered e v e r y -

t h i n g I wished t o s a y , my l o r d . The b a s i c contention

being that t h i s was- never pleaded as a means.

BE KIKE R J; Yes , I ' v e got that argument.

1 0 , 5 0 6 .

MR. FISCHER % And that when i t comes t o a x

Summary of Facts i t ' s never suggested, e i t h e r i n the

Summary or i n the P o l i c y Schedule that i t was part of

the means and methods employed t o t e l l untruths . The

nearest t h a t one can get to t h a t i s by means of the word

" e x p l o i t " , and t h a t I s a y , my l o r d s , we cannot be faced ^

w i t h a t t h i s s t a g e .

BEKKER J: How does t h i s evidence stand to be

excluded under the t o p i c " h o s t i l e i n t e n t " ?

MR. FISCHER; The h o s t i l e intent i s a h o s t i l e

i n t e n t which i s s e t out i n A and B ( l ) and B (4) ( b ) . Now,

my l o r d , the h o s t i l e i n t e n t i n the f i r s t instance i s the

h o s t i l e i n t e n t pleaded, namely the h o s t i l e i n t e n t t o enter

i n t o t h i s c o n s p i r a c y .

BEKKER Js W e l l , i s n ' t the h o s t i l e i n t e n t 15

in 1 terms of the Indictment at tached t o each and every

aocused, i n part A of the Indictment?

MR. FISCHERs YES, that i 3 s o , my l o r d ;

" a c t i n g i n concert and i n common purpose and with, h o s t i l e

i n t e n t a g a i n s t the S t a t e , namely t o subvert and overthrow,

d is turb or impair , t h e y d id , ( a ) d is turb and impair or

endanger the e x i s t e n c e , or a c t i v e l y prepare t o s u b v e r t . . . "

BEKKER Js Would i t be c o r r e c t t o construe

t h a t part of the Indictment i n the f o l l o w i n g f a s h i o n ,

"each and every one of the accused had a p a r t i c u l a r h o s -

t i l e i n t e n t " ? 2 5

MR. FISCHER; Y e s , but i n r e l a t i o n t o the

overt a c t , that i s e n t e r i n g i n t o the conspiracy and the

Schedule *C' nothing e l s e , my l o r d .

RTJMPFF J; That would i n c l u d e the means; 30

1 0 , 5 0 7 .

i t would br ing i n the means?

MR. FISCHER: No, my l o r d , they are not t h e

overt a c t s , hut be t h a t as i t may, my l o r d , what i s not

a l l e g e d anywhere , as part of the h o s t i l e i n t e n t , i s the

h o s t i l e i n t e n t t o l i e .

BEKKER Js Don't you i n f e r the h o s t i l e i n t e n t

from the f a c t of l y i n g , r a t h e r than the h o s t i l e i n t e n t

on the b a s i s you put i t ? My r e a l d i f f i c u l t y , I ' l l put

i t t h i s way, Mr. F i s h e r , i a t h i s : a man makes a speech,

MR. FISCHER; T h a t ' s not an overt a c t , my l o r d .

BEKKER J; I don' t know whether i t i s or i s n ' t ;

at the moment I'm on the quest ion of h o s t i l e i n t e n t . An

accused person makes a speech and he s a y s , "Two A f r i c a n s

were shot by the p o l i c e because of a pot of p a i n t " ; the

quest ion i s , whether when he spoke that he was bona f i d e

or not because i f he w a s n ' t bona f i d e one would say "Now

why did you t e l l them t h a t " . Now, i f the i a s u e turna on

hia bona f i d e s , i n order t o e s t a b l i s h whether or not he

could have b e l i e v e d t h a t , the f i r s t f a c t I would imagine

i s to present evidence to prove the t r u t h , what i n f a c t

i a the t r u t h , because without knowing the t r u t h you

are not i n a p o a i t i o n to judge whether or not h e ' a bona

f i d e . I f , however, you know t h a t what he aaid v a r i e d

deom the t r u t h , then you can embark on f u r t h e r e n q u i r i e a .

Now, i a n ' t the p o s i t i o n here t h i s : the Crown has a l leged

that these people had a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e n t - everyone of

them; assuming an accused person i s found t o have made

t h i s p a r t i c u l a r speech, and i n the l i g h t of the true s e t

of f a c t a he cannot aupply an adequate reaaon as t o why he

s a i d i t , would one not be i n c l i n e d t o say "Y/ell , t h i s may

J

}

1 0 , 5 0 8 .

have a bear ing on the man's i n t e n t i o n at the t i m e " . i

MR. FISCHER: May I t r y and dea l w i t h t h a t , my

l o r d ? I f your l o r d s h i p looks again at page 29 of the

P o l i c y Schedule , your l o r d s h i p w i l l see t h a t t h a t ' s an

i l l u s t r a t i o n of w h a t ' s been done i n each c a s e . The f a c t

that the campaign was intended t o involve v i o l e n c e i s to ^

be i n f e r r e d from and I am j u s t summarising the

making by Sibande of a speech on the 7th March, and the

speech i s set out, l i n e so and so t o so and so; now,

t h a t , my l o r d , does not e n t i t l e the Crown t o h o s t i l e i n -

t e n t . . w e l l , l e t me l e a v e h o s t i l e i n t e n t out of t h i s ^q

f o r the moment, my l o r d , because t h i s i s not an overt

a c t . Indeed, my l o r d , s t r i c t l y speaking your l o r d s h i p s

suggest ion r e l a t e s only t o overt a c t s because those are

the a c t s done with h o s t i l e i n t e n t . This a c t here i s done

w i t h the i n t e n t i o n of making t h i s campaign v i o l e n t ; t h a t 15

i s the e i l e g a t i o n . . . . . .

BEKKER J; I 'm not concerned f o r the moment with

the overt a c t ; I'm concerned w i t h the man's s t a t e of mind,

a h o s t i l e i n t e n t . Did he or did he not have a h o s t i l e i n -

t e n t ? 20

MR. FISCHERs Yes , my l o r d , but the h o s t i l e i n -

t e n t , the s t a t e of mind, to overthrow the S t a t e , i s r e l e -

vant t o the overt a c t . .

BEKKER J; No doubt, q u i t e r i g h t . .

MR. FISCHER; Even the Crown pleads a s t a t e 25

of mind, a d i f f e r e n t s t a t e of mind i n r e l a t i o n t o a

speech which intended t o e x p l o i t a gr ievance to- gain

support , or intended t o encourage v i o l e n c e i n t h i s

campaign, or whatever i t may be . . 30

1 0 , 5 0 9 .

RUMPFF J; But i f the Crown says there are overt 1

a c t s , and i t g ives p a r t i c u l a r s about the c o n s p i r a c y , de-

t a i l s of what i t a l l e g e s i t t o b e , but i t l e a v e s the h o s -

t i l e i n t e n t i n the a i r , as such, i s i t e n t i t l e d , or i s i t

not e n t i t l e d t o lead evidence from which such i n t e n t may

be i n f e r r e d - - apart from overt ac ts? 5

MR. FISCHERs Yes , my l o r d , wi th regard to ax

overt a c t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o lead such evidence as i t may

have of h o s t i l e i n t e n t . . .

RUMPFF J; Apart from the overt a c t i t s e l f ?

MR. FISCHERs Yes , my l o r d . Your l o r d s h i p 10

asks me apart from the a c t ?

RUMPFF J; Yes.

MR. FISCHERs My l o r d , I go t h i s l e n g t h to say

i t depends - - i t might v e r y w e l l depend on the p l e a d i n g . . .

RUMPFF Js T h a t ' s why I put the p o s i t i o n , t h a t 15

there are no p a r t i c u l a r s i n connection w i t h the h o s t i l e

i n t e n t .

MR. FISCHER; No, there a r e n ' t , my l o r d , but

there are p a r t i c u l a r s wi th regard t o t h i s speech and

every other speech, and the p a r t i c u l a r s charge "You, 20

accused No. so-and-so , encouraged a campaign by making

t h i s speech" . "You encouraged people t o f o l l o w you by

making t h i s speech. You encouraged race hatred by making

t h i s speech."

RUMPFF Js The overt act every t ime. . . 25

MR. FISCHER: No, my l o r d , t h i s i s i n the

P o l i c y Schedule , because we are not dea l ing with the

overt a c t s .

MR. TRENGJyE: My l o r d s , I must c o r r e c t my

learned friend t h e r e . The P o l i c y Schedule deals w i t h that 50

1 0 , 5 1 0 .

p o r t i o n of the overt a c t r e l a t i n g t o the c o n s p i r a c y , and

the Defence wanted the evidence from which we i n f e r that

there was a conspiracy to overthrow the S t a t e by v i o l e n c e ,

and the P o l i c y Schedule r e l a t e s s o l e l y and e n t i r e l y t o

the overt act of conspir ing t o overthrow the S t a t e by

v i o l e n c e .

RUMPFF Ji To the f a c t s from which the Crown

seeks t o i n f e r the conspiracy?

MR. TRENG«^E; The c o n s p i r a c y , my l o r d , y e s .

MR. FISCHERs That i s s o , my l o r d . These are

the f a c t s from which the i n f e r e n c e i s to be dram , these

are not the overt a c t s ; the overt a c t s i s the conspi-

racy and the matter i s pleaded i n the Indictment.

RUMPFF J; The speeches.

MR. FISCHERs In Schedule "C" , my l o r d ,

RUMPFF Js Yes , w e l l , t h i s speech i s one of t he

overt a c t s , I take i t , - - i t may be , . I don ' t know.

MR. H SCHER; Maybe one, p o s s i b l y d i f f e r e n t

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s apply to t h a t , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J: But i f that i s so, then the Crown

had not bound i t s e l f by p a r t i c u l a r s i n regard - from

which i t seeks t o i n f e r the h o s t i l e i n t e n t i n regard t o

t h i s p a r t i c u l a r speech, apart from the conspiracy .

MR. FISCHER-. Ho, my l o r d . I t seeks - as I

understand i t - t o ask your l o r d s h i p s t o hold that an

accused making a p a r t i c u l a r speech intended t o s t i r up

h a t r e d , because he l i e d - your l o r d s h i p s are asked t o

draw the i n f e r e n c e of an i n t e n t i o n t o hate from the f a c t

that he l i e d , otherwise t h e r e ' s no purpose . . . .

BEKKER Js He exhorts the audience t o develop a

sense of hatred by means of a l i e .

J 1 0 , 5 1 1 .

MR. FISCHER; That i s s o , my l o r d . Now, that

v e r y phrase, 'by means of a l i e ' i s c l e a r l y excluded from

every scrap of paper i n these p l e a d i n g s .

BEKKER J ; But assuming such a speech i s proved

would i t be permiss ib le to ask the accused 'Why did you

l i e ' ?

MR. FISCHER; Yes , and you would have t o accept

h i s answer.

BEKKER J; Yes .

MR. FISCHER; One would f i r s t have t o ask him i f

he l i e d , i n e f f e c t .

RUMPFF J; I s your answer not t h a t the conspiracy

governs the overt a c t ? The Crown has a l l e g e d that there

i s a conspiracy and i n pursuance of the conspiracy the

overt a c t s have been comitted, and i n regard t o the con-

s p i r a c y which governs the overt a c t s the Crown has given

i t s p a r t i c u l a r s . . .

MR a FISCHER; That i s so , my l o r d , and a l l th^t

i s to be i n f e r r e d from t h i s mass of p a r t i c u l a r s . Now,

the massof p a r t i c u l a r s does not inc lude anywhere a sug-

g e s t i o n t h a t the means employed, or the speeches from

which an i n f e r e n c e i s t o be made, c o n t a i n e d l i e s .

RUMPFF J; I s the Crown excluded i n regard t o

a s p e c i f i c overt a c t , say a speech, i s i t excluded on

the Indictment and the P a r t i c u l a r s as they s tand, from

l e a d i n g evidence f r o m which an i n t e n t of a p a r t i c u l a r

speech a t a meeting could be i n f e r r e d ? I f s o , why?

MR. FISCHER; In an overt a c t , my l o r d ,

that i s the act of Treason i t s e l f , the Crown may be at

l a r g e on the q u e s t i o n of i n t e n t ; i t may be assumed

that the accused must meet any form of evidence w hich

10

15

20

25

30

J 1 0 , 5 1 2 .

would demonstrate h i s i n t e n t , i n performing the v e r y a c t s

Of Treason, but when one seeks t o draw an i n f e r e n c e of a

conspiracy from c e r t a i n speeches then one must draw the

i n f e r e n c e from the speeches pleaded, and may I t r y and

put i t t h i s way, my lords., The only way i n which the

Crcwn can then plead t h a t i s t o say 'You must draw an

i n f e r e n c e from wha- the accused s a i d , or from an innuendo

on what he s a i d ' . In other words, you can s a y , t h a t

the Crown can lead evidence t o the e f f e c t t h a t the accused

said 'You must use v i o l e n c e ' , or i t can lead evidence

that the accused said 'You must use the language of the

b e e r h a l l ' ; that i s innuendo; but whether the accused

l i e d , or did not l i e , i s i r r e l e v a n t t o the quest ion as

to whether from t h a t speech one can draw an i n f e r e n c e ,

because the i n f e r e n c e t h a t the Court i s asked t o draw

from that i s that they entered i n t o a c o n s p i r a c y w i t h

h o s t i l e i n t e n t . T h a t ' s why, my l o r d s , thee may be a

d i f f e r e n c e between the overt act i n •'"his case and the

speech which was included i n any one of these - i n the

summary or i n the p o l i c y schedule . I donct know t h a t

I can take i t much f u r t h e r than t h i s , my l o r d s , than to

say again t h a t what the pleadings say i s t h a t the Court

must l o o k at these speechex - - the words used by these

men, these speakers - - i t doesn ' t s a y that you must

seek t o draw aa i n f e r e n c e from the motive with which a

man made h i s speech; from the honesty or dishonesty of

i t ; that would have bee n a separate c a s e , i t would

probably have had t o be included i n B (4) (b) as an

e ighth means, as another term i n the c o n s p i r a c y , but

even i f i t were not included there i t would c e r t a i n l y

10

15

20

25

30

1 0 , 5 1 3 .

have t o "be included i n the Summary, and i n the P o l i c y Sche-

d u l e ,

RUMPFF J; Are there any overt a c t s ?

MR. FISCHERi I don ' t know, my l o r d s , i f there are

any overt a c t s because my learned f r i e n d h a s n ' t infomed us

except i n the most genera l terms of those speeches and

speakers , and he apprent ly wants t o . . . . .

BEKKER J; And the other p o s s i b l e ground, that

t h i s c a s t s l i g h t on what the speaker was r e f e r r i n g t o ,

•two A f r i c a n s were shot becais e of a pot of p a i n t ' , would

not t h i s evidence be admiss ib le t o e x p l a i n what he was

a l l u d i n g t o ?

MR. FISCHER: My l o r d , i f i t were a quest ion

of vocabulary .and my learned f r iend h a s n ' t put i t on that

b a s i s , t h e n , of c o u r s e , I c o u l d n ' t o b j e c t . I f a speaker

said " W e l l , I want everybody t o remember the t i n of p a i n t ;

we w i l l stand s i l e n t f o r two minutes" , t h e r e c l e a r l y i s

the use of an e x p r e s s i o n , as there was the use of the e x -

p r e s s i o n , b e e r i i a l l language, but where the speaker him-

s e l f proceeds 1 o e x p l a i n what the t i n of paint i s , that

the t i n of paint wan the beginning of the r i o t , then

there i s no need f o r t l i i r Court t o go i n t o a l e n g t h y

hearing on what occurred t h e r e . I t d o e s n ' t e x p l a i n an

obscure or ambiguous phrase„

RUMPFF J ; Mr. F i s c h e r , my d i f f i c u l t y f a l l s

under the A part of your argument, and that i s the pro-

motion of f e e l i n g s of d i s c o n t e n t , h o s t i l i t y between the

v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s . That i s s a i d to be , by the Crown, one

of the means agreed upon during the c o n s p i r a c y .

MR. FISCHERs Y e s , my l o r d .

1 0 , 5 1 4

RUMPFF J : That a l l e g a t i o n does not br ing any-

s p e c i f i c overt act i n t o t h i s group, does i t ?

MR. FISCHER; W e l l , my l o r d

RUMPFF J : Except t h a t i t may be i n f e r r e d from

c e r t a i n overt a c t s . Presumably i t does , where the overt

a c t s a ie^iven from which . . . .

MR. FISCHER; There are no overt a c t s attached

t o t h a t , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J; There a r e , t h a t i s 5 , 'promoting f e e l -

i n g s of d i s c o n t e n t or unrestand hatred or h o s t i l i t y b e -

tween the v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s ' .

MR. FISCHER; Y e s .

RUMPFF J; The Crown here assumes a duty t o

prove the c r e a t i o n of h o s t i l i t y between r a c e s . I f the

evidence by the Crown i s - led a l r e a d y by the Crown, that

the A.N.C. i s an o r g a n i s a t i o n which looks a f t e r the i n -

t e r e s t s o f t h e A f r i c a n s g e n e r a l l y , and t h e i r treatment by

the A u t h o r i t i e s and t h e i r treatment by the P o l i c e , then I

take i t a statement by a speaker at a neet ing that c e r t a i n

A f r i c a n s had been shot by the P o l i c e , may on t h i s evidence

not at a l l be a s tatement c r e a t i n g - made f o r the purpose

of c r e a t i n g h o s t i l i t i e s * I t may be a genuine s ta tement

c o n c e r n i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s of both p a r t i e s , the o r g a n i s a t i o n

and the audience . Now i f a speaker i s a l l e g e d t o have

said that a c e r t a i n number of Afr icanshave been shot and

he makes that statement - assume he s a y s t h a t twenty have

beai shot - and he does t h a t f o r purposes of making t h a t

statement to the audience as a member of the A.N.C. but

i t i s proved by the Crown t h a t one was s h o t , not 20f t o

the knowledge of t he speaker , then the C rown might seek

t o put a c e r t a i n i n f e r e n c e on t h a t ?

10

15

20

25

30

1 0 , 5 1 5

MR. FISCHER; Yes , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J; In other words, the question of t he

i n t e n t of the speaker t o c r e a t e h o s t i l i t y depends upon h i e

s t a t e of mind and h i s knowledge, and b e f o r e the Crown can

ask the Court to i n f e r from a p a r t i c u l a r speech t h a t the 5

speaker intended t o create h o s t i l i t y , having regard t o

what I sa id about t h e A.NoC. ' s o b j e c t s , b e f o r e the Crown

v can do i t , i t must l a y the b a s i s t o br ing i t out of the

c l a s s of communication concerning the bona f i d e i n t e r e s t s .

Now i f t h a t i s s o , why c a n ' t the Crown lead t h i s evidence? 10 MR. F35CHER: My l o r d , our submission i s t h a t

that i s not s o because that f a l l s outside of these p l e a d -

i n g s . Take t h i s paragraph, Roman V, my l o r d , the one your

l o r d s h i p i s r e f e r r i n g t o . . . .

RUMPFF J; Before you go on, t h i s paragraph V 15

"promotes f e e l i n g s of d i s c o n t e n t " ; how i s that l i n k e d up

wi th overt a c t s ? In the r e s t of the p l e a d i n g s . Was there

a quest ion concerning t h i s paragraph V - p a r t i c u l a r s of

which the Crown seeks t o „ . „ 0

MR. FISCHER; In the f i r s t i n s t a n c e , my l o r d , 20 paragraph V i s a p o r t i o n of t h e c o n s p i r a c y , one of the means

agreed upon, to f u r t h e r the conspiracy to overthrow by

v i o l e n c e . And t h a t i s the conspiracy which contains the

h o s t i l e i n t e n t , t o overthrow by v i o l e n c e .

RUMPF J; Now how i s t h i s l i n k e d up? In 25

other words - I m merely t r y i n g t o f i n d out, i s t h e Crown

l i m i t e d ?

MR. FISCHER; Each one of t h e s e i s attached i n

Schedule 'C f t o the overt a c t s . Schedule »CI conta ins the

overt a c t s , being speeches , and your lordships w i l l remember 30

1 0 , 5 1 6 .

t h a t the l a s t column - t h e r e ' s the name of the speaker ,

the meeting, the words, and then the l a s t column i s said

to be as f o l l o w s ; 'With r e f e r e n c e t o paragraph B ( 4 ) of

Part B of t h e Indictment , the p a r t i c u l a r means which the

speech was intended t o f u r t h e r or carry i n t o e f f e c t " .

Each one of t h e overt ac ts then i s r e l a t e d t o one of the

paragraphs, one or more of t he paragraphs of 4 ( b ) , except

f o r the l a s t two, which have no overt a c t s .

RUMPFF J; So the Crown has r e f e r r e d t o c e r t a i n

speeches which g ive r i s e t o t h e i r a l l e g a t i o n • . .

MR r. F IS CHER i FROM which one i s t o i n f e r .

RU1VPFF J; And t h e y say t h i s speech g i v e s

r i s e t o V. They have s e t out „ . .

MR, FISCHER; The speech s e t out g i v e s r i s e

t o one of these paragraphs i n IV*

RUMPFF sJ° And what speeches are there r e -

f e r r e d t o ?

MR, FISCHER$ What spee ches?

RUIvIPFF J ; Yes. Are any of t h e speeches r e -

f e r r e d t o that Mr. Trengove mentioned t h i s morning?

MR, FISCHER2 I don ' t know, my l o r d . Perhaps

my learned f r i e n d could t e l l u s . That i s why, my l o r d ,

I ' v e been addressing your l o r d s h i p s , on the b a s i s t h a t

these are not overt a c t s , and on the b a s i s t h e r e f o r e that

a l l t h a t has beei pleaded i s the summary of f a c t s plus

the p o l i c y s c h e d u l e , i n which i t i s said that from the

making of these speeches you must i n f e r the c o n s p i r a c y .

RUMPFF Js Yes. So the p o s i t i o n i s then that

i n regard t o tub-paragraph V of 4 ( b ) , the Crown has sup-

pl ied the Defence w i t h a number of speeches on which i t

r e l i e s f o r t h e i r case under V?

1 0 , 5 1 7 .

MR. FISCHER; No, my l o r d ; t h e s e . . .

RUMPFF J ; I thought the schedule mentioned t h a t .

MR. FISCHER; The p o l i c y schedule?

RUMPFF J : Yes .

MR. FISCHER; T h a t ' s not Schedule ' C ' , my l o r d . 5

Schedule 'C ' are the speeches which are r e l i e d on i n the

f i r s t i n s t a n c e , and these are the overt a c t s , but p o l i c y

•C1 - the one which was suppl ied as a r e s u l t of your

l o r d s h i p s ' *>rder, "the Crown t o g i v e the p a r t i c u l a r s

from which v i o l e n c e i s t o he proved. V i o l e n c e being the 10 essence .

RUMPFF J; W e l l , i s V q u a l i f i e d , or i s the Crown

a t l i b e r t y t o lead evidence ooncerning the a l l e g a t i o n i n

4 (b) V? MR. FISCHER; No, i t ' s n o t , w i t h r e s p e c t , my l o r d .

15

Thr Crown i s bound by i t s Further P a r t i c u l a r s .

RUMPFF J ; How does anything i n the Summary of

Pacts l i m i t V?

MR. FISCHER W e l l , my l o r d , i n the f i r s t i n -

s t a n c e , of c o u r s e , V i s l i m i t e d by Schedule C. 20

RUMPFF J; In what way?

MR. FISCHER; In pursuance, i n fur therance -

t h i s i s part C of t he Indictment, my l o r d ; " I n pursuance

a id fur therance of the said conspiracy , more p a r t i c u l a r l y

as part of t h e a c t of preparat ion f o r the v i o l e n t over- 25

throw of the S t a t e , the accused with h o s t i l e i n t e n t did

during a c e r t a i n period proceed t o c e r t a i n meetings which

were convened" , and those are the meetings s e t out i n

Schedule C. RUMPFF J: Yes , but V i s s a i d t o contain a means

30

J 1 0 , 5 1 8 .

agreed upon. I t ' s p a r t of t he agreement. 1

MR. FISCHERs Yes one of the means agreed.

RUMPFF Hs How I'm not concerned with what t h e y

did i n pursuance of thatmeais , i n pursuance of the con-

s p i r a c y ; t h i s i s an a l l e g a t i o n of t h e c o n s p i r a c y , part R

of the conspiracy ; we are now on the c o n s p i r a c y . w

MR. FISCHER; That i s so.

RUMPFF Js Hot on a c t s committed i n pursuance

of the conspiracy . There may h e , because the conspiracy

I take i t i s t o be drawn a l s o according t o the C rown

from the overt a c t s , but we are dea l ing here wi th the

agreement and the terms. One of the terms of the agree-

ment was - - the agree ment of the accused and others -

that t h e y would c r e a t e h o s t i l i t y between the v a r i o u s

s e c t i o n s of the p o p u l a t i o n . How, i n order to prove t h i s 15

term of t h e c o n s p i r a c y , i s the Crown bound by any

p a r t i c u l a r p a r t i c u l a r s by . . .

MR. FISCHER; With r e s p e c t , y e s , my l o r d , i t

i s bound by the Summary of F a c t s . As I showed your l o r d -

ships . . . 20 RUMPFF J; I t says that the agreement i s to

b e i n f e r r e d from the Summary of F a c t s . Now, how does t t e

Summary of F a c t s r e l a t e t o V.

MR. FISCHER? The two r e l e v a n t paragraphs

appear t o us to be paragraph 9(a) and 9 ( h ) , my l o r d , 25

at pages 59 and 68. "Each of the a foresa id o r g a n i s a -

t i o n s sought i n advance t o implement i t s p o l i c y a f o r e -

said ( a ) by convening and holding meetings a nd making

speeches" . Your l o r d s h i p s must teear i n mind that the

i n t r o d u c t o r y paragraph t o the Summary says 'The Crown 30 intends t o prove the e x i s t e n c e of the conspiracy s e t

1 0 , 5 1 9 .

f o r t h i n part B by way of an i n f e r e n c e from these f a c t s .

RUMPFF J : That would inc lude the terms.

MR. FISCHER; That i n c l u d e s the terms, y e s , my

l o r d . So i f one i s going t o look a t speeches one looks

then at 9 ( a ) f , l t h e y convened the meetings and made the

speeches , "

RUMPFF J; And are the speeches then l i m i t e d ?

Or s p e c i f i e d ?

MR. FISCHER; I 'm not q u i t e c e r t a i n hQv i t now

works. I f your l o r d s h i p s w i l l al low me one minute. Y e s ,

my l o r d s , I d i d n ' t readthe whole of 9 ( a ) , "By convening

and holding meetings throughout the Union of South A f r i c a

a t which meetings one or more of t h e o b j e c t s enumerated

i n 8(a) above, by the means s e t f o r t h i n paragraph 8(c)

was d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y encouraged, propagated or

advocated, p a r t i c u l a r s of the said meetings are s e t out

i n Schedule 1 attached h e r e t o " . That was the very l a r g e

schedule with the whole l o t of t h e speeches, my l o r d s ,

RUMPFF J; Very w e l l .

MR. FISCHER ; Now i t ' s confined t o that a nd

the a l l e g a t i o n i s the making of that speech, so one l o o k s

at the words . . .

RUMPFF J; Then i t says "The promotion of h o s -

t i l i t y i s to be i n f e r r e d from a number of speeches? I

g i v e you the speeches" „

MR. FISCHER; Now t h a t ' s the promotion of hos-

t i l i t y , my l o r d , and not the h o s t i l i t y i n the speaker .

RUMPFF J; Promotion of h o s t i l i t y , y e s . I s

that s e t out p - you 've r e f e r r e d t o Schedule 1 - - i s

t h i s meeting which Mr. TrengOve has r e f e r r e d t o s e t out

i n t h a t schedule?

1 0 , 5 2 0 .

MR. FISCHER; I t must b e , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J: Then the Crown r e l i e s , as we are

now showing, i n order t o e s t a b l i s h 4(b) (V) i n t e r a l i a ,

on t h i s speech, or t h i s meeting, the speeches at t h i s

meeting?

MR. FISCHER: From the speech, amongst other

t h i n g s , one must i n f e r . . •

RUMPFF J : What are the other th ings?

MR. FISCHER: The documents, my l o r d , t h e . . . ,

BEKKER J: Do you suggest t h a t apart from the

s t a t e of mind of t h e speaker which i s i r r e l e v a n t , you've

got t o l o o k at what he s a i d i n order t o answer the ques-

t i o n yea or nay, did he promote h o s t i l i t y or not . *

MR. FISCHER: T h a t ' s what the Crown has pleaded

my l o r d .

BEKKER J: You suggest h i s s t a t e of mind i a

i r r e l e v a n t ?

MR. FISCHER: Y e s , my l o r d .

BEKKER J: Because y o u ' r e confined t o the words?

MR. FISCHER: Y e s , my l o r d . May I suggest

that one can t e s t i t i n another way. ^he could have

said "by making the f o l l o w i n g speeches and furthermore

by t e l l i n g the f o l l o w i n g l i e s " , or what would have been

presumably the l i n e which the Crown would have fol lowed

i f i t had had t h i s i n mind a t the time i t p leaded, i t

wculd have s a i d : " ^ne of the means was the mis leading of

audiences" , but i n s t e a d of t h a t i t has sa id "You must

i n f e r the conapiracy from the making of the apeech" .

BEKKER J: What'a the exact phraaeology?

MR. FISCHER: "Promoting f e e l i n g a of d iacon-

tent or unreat amongat, andhatred or h o s t i l i t y between

10,521.

the v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s and r a c e s of the populat ion of the

Union of South A f r i c a , f o r the purposes of tie u l t i m a t e

v i o l e n t overthrow "

BEKKER J; And the Summary of P a c t s c ircum-

s c r i b e s how that took p l a c e .

MR. FISCHERs Y e s , my l o r d . . . . c i r c u m s c r i b e d

13® m a t e r i a l from which one can make an i n f e r e n c e ,

RUMPFF J: Whether the man had a h o s t i l e i n t e n t

or was l y i n g or . . .

MR. FISCHERs That i s so^ my l o r d . And your

l o r d s h i p s w i l l see t h a t i t i s a mat ter of s u b s t a n c e . In

the c a s e , as we see i t , i n "the Indic tment , i t i s - the

words t o be looked a t , the s p e e c h e s , the documents; a v e r y

much more e l a b o r a t e case could have been drawn presumably

i n which one would have i n f e r r e d something, a h o s t i l e i n -

t e n t , from the f a c t that speakers employed u n t r u t h s . Now

the only s u g g e s t i o n which my learned f r i e n d can make t h a t

t h a t i s i n f a c t pleaded here i s by us ing the word e x p l o i -

t a t i o n , and saying t h a t that i n c l u d e s e x p l o i t i n g by f a l s e

means, by means of f a l s e h o o d s . Indeed i t goes f u r t h e r ,

because our c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t you don ' t e x p l o i t a g r i e v -

ance when you l i e about i t . You e x p l o i t a g r i e v a n c e when

you use the gr ievance i n ordinary l a n g u a g e . Now the two

t y p e s of c o n s p i r a c y are d i f f e r e n t . ^ e i s advocat ing

v i o l e n c e , the other one i s poisoning men's minds by un-

t r u t h s , which i s r e a l l y an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t c o n s p i r a c y ,

and while I r e a l i s e my learned f r i e n d i s l i m i t i n g t h i s t o

two matters they may be t h a t they are important m a t t e r s ,

but they a r e i n our submission outside of the p l e a d i n g s .

9 ( a ) then, my l o r d s , p o i n t s c l e a r l y t o the f a c t t h a t i t

i s the making of t h e speech and 9 (h) does not c r e a t e an

i 10,522.

e x c e p t i o n i n f a v o u r of the Crown e n t i t l i n g i t t o open up 1

a whole new f i e l d of i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n which each One of

the r e p o r t e r s may have t o be c r o s s examined on whether the

speaker appeared t o be bona f i d e or n o t . Now your l o r d -

ships w i l l r e a l i s e t h a t nowhere i n the l a s t s i x months c

has the case been conducted on the b a s i s of asking t h e

r e p o r t e r s e i t h e r by the Crovm, "Could you see the speaker

w i t h h i s tongue i n h i s cheek" or by us asking "Could you

see the speaker did not have h i s tongue i n h i s cheek" .

RUMPFF J: Thst i s not r e a l l y a m a t e r i a l q u e s t i o n ,

but what you could have asked i s , what was the genera l

b e l i e f of a c e r t a i n grisrance, t h e o r i g i n of a c e r t a i n

g r i e v a n c e .

MR. FISCHER; Your l o r d s h i p w i l l remember t h a t

on one or two occasions I did ask t h a t q u e s t i o n from peo- 15

p i e who seemed t o know the c o n d i t i o n s , as t o whether

people did g e n u i n e l y b e l i e v e . But i t ' s a f a r cry from

t h e r e , t o s a y i n g t h a t w i t n e s s e s have j u s t f a i l e d t o t e s -

t i f y what might be a v i t a l matter i n t h i s Indictment , i f

i t were i n t e r p r e t e d t o i n c l u d e the s t a t e of mind of the 20 s p e a k e r , not v i s - a - v i s the S t a t e , not i n r e l a t i o n t o

overthrowing the S t a t e , but i n r e l a t i o n t o speaking the

t r u t h or speaking the u n t r u t h .

RUMPFF J; You say t h a t on the f i r s t ground,

apart from the e x p l o i t a t i o n , t h a t what the Crown has 25

i n d i c a t e d i s t h a t i n the P a r t i c u l a r s i t r e l i e s on the

terms of the speech?

MR. FISCHER; Y e s . In other words, my l o r d ,

t h i s i s a case which i s concerned w i t h i n f e r r i n g a con-

s p i r a c y from what was sa id and w r i t t e n , and not from what 30 was i n the minds of the speakers or t h e w r i t e r s . I t ' s

1

V Lo ,523 •

t r u e , my l o r d s , t h a t i t may v e r y w e l l be p o s s i b l e i n the

c o r r e c t c ircumstances t o prove the c o n s p i r a c y by shewing

what was i n the minds of people; one might be able t o

e s t a b l i s h a conspiracy i f you shewed that t e n men c o n s i s t e n t -

l y l i e d about a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t , or about a p a r t i c u l a r s e t 5

of f a c t s . I f , f o r i n s t a n c e , the Congress speakers c o n -

s i s t e n t l y went about s a y i n g that i t was the Government's

i n t e n t i o n t o t a k e away the f i r s t born from each f a m i l y • .

RUMPFF J; You 're t h i n k i n g back a l o n g way.

MR. FISCHER; W e l l , there i s an i l l u s t r a t i o n , my 10 l o r d , where one might w e l l shew t h a t those speakers knew

p e r f e c t l y w e l l t h a t t h a t was not t o be done, but because

t h e y a l l did i t t h e r e f o r e there must have been a c o n s p i r a c y .

Now t h a t would be a conspiracy based on what was the s t a t e

Of mind of the s p e a k e r , and p r o p e r l y pleaded there could be 15

no o b j e c t i o n t o i t . That i s not the c o n s p i r a c y h e r e , and

i t ' s on t h a t matter t h a t we have r a i s e d t h i s m a t t e r , my

l o r d , and taken up some time of the C o u r t ' s time . .

RUMPFF J: I 'm a f r a i d we w i l l have t o hear Mr.

TrengOve on t h i s . 20 MR. TRMG^E? I ' d be v e r y pleased i f your

l o r d s h i p s would al low me an opportuni ty . My l o r d s , . . .

RUMPFF J; W i l l you s t a r t o f f w i t h A , the

promotion of r a c c i a l h o s t i l i t y . . . MR. TRENGOVEs Y e s , my l o r d .

25

RUMPFF J; Now, i s i t c o r r e c t t h a t sub-

paragraph ( v ) i s l i n k e d of n e c e s s i t y with t h e Summary

of F a c t s ? And t h a t the speeches are t h e r e r e f e r r e d t o ?

MR. TRENGOVE; Y e s , my l o r f l . In order t o

get the sequence of the p leadings c o r r e c t l y , my l o r d ,

1 0 , 5 2 4 .

may I s t a r t wi th Part A of the Indictment?

RUMPFF J; Yes .

MR. TRENG^VE; Now, part A of the Indictment,

my l o r d s , s e t f o r t h in no uncerta in language t h a t every

accused had a c e r t a i n s t a t e of mine, a h o s t i l e i n t e n t ,

and, my l o r d s , whether the overt a c t i s the conspiracy

Or whether i t i s the making of a speech or at tending

the Congress of the People , Or the p u b l i c a t i o n of a docu-

ment, that h o s t i l e s t a t e of mind must have been present

at the time when the person committed the Overt act a l -

l e g e d . I f he did not have the h o s t i l e i n t e n t at the

time when he committed the Overt a c t i t would not be an

overt a c t . Therefore we preface a l l the a c t s a l l e g e d

a g a i n s t the accused, a l l those a c t s we prefaced by

saying that they were committed through a s t a t e of

mine, and t h a t s t a t e of mind, my l o r d s , i s the charge

of Treason - t h e whole b a s i s of the Crown's c a s e .

Now we were never at any s tage r e q u i r e d , n e i t h e r on the

f i r s t occasion or subsequently , we were never asked t o

give the f a c t s from which we i n f e r i n respect of each

accused, the h o s t i l e s t a t e of m i n d .

RUMPFF J; N3, but your Indictment took the

shape of an a l l e g a t i o n of a c o n s p i r a c y , ' t o overthrow'

and i n pursuance of that conspiracy overt a c t .

MR. TRENGvVE: Yes , my l o r d , but we say that

when the persons conspired they conspired with the

h o s t i l e s t a t e of mind.

RUMPFF J: Yes .

MR. TRENGQVE: SO that we are a t l a r g e j

. drawing the i n f e r e n c e of the h o s t i l e s t a t e of

mind from a l l the f a c t s w h i c h are a d m i s s i b l e a g a i n s t

1

10

J 1 0 , 5 2 5 .

the p a r t i c u l a r accused. The Crown has l e d evidence

of meet ings, very o f t e n not r e f e r r e d to i n t h a t sche-

dule 1 , because i t i s a t l a r g e in r e s p e c t of a p a r -

t i c u l a r accused to show what h i s s t a t e of mind was.

Now, on t h a t b a s i s , my l o r d s , a l o n e , a p a r t from any-

t h i n g e l s e , we are e n t i t l e d to show t h a t an accused

made a c e r t a i n speech; we are e n t i t l e d to show what

the t rue f a c t s are and we are e n t i t l e d to ask your

l o r d s h i p s to i n f e r from t h a t something about h i s s t a t e

of mind.

BEKKER J; On the whole form of your I n d i c t -

ment, are you not l i m i t e d to draw the i n f e r e n c e of

h o s t i l e s t a t e of mind by the P a r t i c u l a r s you suppl ied?

MR. TRENGOVE: No, my l o r d .

BEKKER J; Why do you say t h a t ?

MR. TRENGOVE: Because , my l o r d , we were not 1 5

asked to supply P a r t i c u l a r s as to h i s s t a t e o f mind.

We were asked to supply P a r t i c u l a r s in r e s p e c t of overt

q c t s o n l y , and, my l o r d s . . .

RUMPFF J: Y e s , but on the c o n s p i r a c y as such

you say t h a t t h e r e i s in your Indictment a c o n s p i r a c y

to overthrow the S t a t e w i t h h o s t i l e i n t e n t .

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J: Then you p a r t i c u l a r i s e on what you

r e l y , you p a r t i c u l a r i s e .

MR. TRENGOVE: On the c o n s p i r a c y , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J: Y e s . You say t h a t p a r t of the

c o n s p i r a c y was t h a t ' t h e o b j e c t s would be determined

from time to t ime' .

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d . But , my l o r d s ,

may I put i t t h i s way

20

25

30

10,526.

10

RUMPFF J; Then I think l a t e r on, when i t

comes to Further P a r t i c u l a r s , you say t h a t t h i s con-

s p i r a c y t o overthrow the S t a t e w i t h v i o l e n c e - in other

words the c o n s p i r a c y w i t h t h i s h o s t i l e i n t e n t , i s to

he d e r i v e d from c e r t a i n p a r t i c u l a r s .

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d . . . . not in

r e l a t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r a c c u s e d , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J: Why not?

MR. TRENGOVE: We say take accused X, my

loj*d; we say t h a t a p a r t from accused X t h e r e was a

c o n s p i r a c y to overthrow the S t a t e by v i o l e n c e ; a

c o n s p i r a c y e x i s t e d to overthrow the S t a t e by v i o l e n c e .

Now we say accused X, w i t h a c e r t a i n h o s t i l e i n t e n t ,

j o i n e d t h a t c o n s p i r a c y .

RUMPFF J: I th ink you are now t r y i n g to g e t l g

out of your form of I n d i c t m e n t . . .

MR. TRENGOVE: No, my l o r d s .

RUMPFF J: You have a l l e g e d the c o n s p i r a c y , and

y o u ' v e a l l e g e d t h a t i t l a s t e d over a p e r i o d and t h a t

the accused j o i n e d , and then you d e a l w i t h t h a t con- 20

s p i r a c y as a s i n g l e e n t i t y ; a p a r t from the time a t

which each accused e n t e r e d or l e f t , you g i v e the

P a r t i c u l a r s of the c o n s p i r a c y over t h a t p e r i o d .

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J: The c o n s p i r a c y . Then you say t h a t 25

t h a t c o n s p i r a c y to which he j o i n e d f i r s t of a l l i s to

b e i n f e r r e d from c e r t a i n f a c t s . Have you s e t out

a g a i n s t any s i n g l e accused p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s on which

you r e l y ?

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , ray l o r d . 30

J 1 0 , 5 2 7 .

RUMPFF J: Which you say does not g i v e r i s e to -1

the c o n s p i r a c y but only h o s t i l e i n t e n t .

MR. TRENGOVE; We were not asked about h i s hos-

t i l e i n t e n t , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J; Wel l , have you s e t out anything of

t h a t nature? I d o n ' t think s o . 5

MR. TRENGOVE; My l o r d s , we were asked to g ive

the f a c t s from which we i n f e r r e d in h i s case that he

jo ined the c o n s p i r a c y .

RUMPFF J; Y e s , t h a t y o u ' v e g i v e n .

MR. TRENGOVE; Y e s , we gave those fects, but we 1 0

were not asked to g i v e the f a c t s from which we i n f e r

h i s h o s t i l e s t a t e of mind in j o i n i n g the c o n s p i r a c y .

My l o r d , may I put i t t h i s way? I may want to overthrow

the S t a t e . I n d t h a t s t a t e of mind may be true to

15

e x i s t p r i o r to my j o i n i n g the c o n s p i r a c y . I may have

a c e r t a i n s t a t e of mind. Because I have t h a t s t a t e of

mind and because I had become aware of the e x i s t e n c e

of a c o n s p i r a c y to overthrow the S t a t e , I then jo ined

t h a t c o n s p i r a c y ! t h a t c o n s p i r a c y , and the f a c t of my 20

j o i n i n g , would probably a l s o prove my s t a t e of mind,

b u t I may be a b l e to prove my s t a t e of mind i r r e s p e c -

t i v e of my p a r t i c i p a t i o n in any c o n s p i r a c y to overthrow

the S t a t e . But I must show t h a t when I jo ined t h a t

c o n s p i r a c y I then had a s t a t e of mind to overthrow the 25

S t a t e .

RUMPFF J; Then, a p a r t from the information

which y o u ' v e g i v e n , you say t h a t you are a t l i b e r t y

to c a l l any type of evidence concerning any p a r t i c u l a r

a c c u s e d ' s s t a t e of mine? 30

jr

1 0 , 5 2 8 .

MR, TRENGOVE; Y e s , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J: Which might be r e l e v a n t to the t r i a l .

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J; W e l l , I thought that when you s t a r t e d ,

a f t e r a l l the argument, t h a t we were t r y i n g to c o n f i n e

the c a s e to such l i m i t s t h a t the accused knew what the

case was a g a i n s t them.

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d , we were c o n f i n i n g

J t to the informat ion t h a t was required by the Defence ,

and on my learned f r i e n d ' s own statement t h i s morning

they never asked us to g ive them the f a c t s from which

the h o s t i l e i n t e n t was i n f e r r e d .

RUMPFF J: I s t h a t now the h o s t i l e i n t e n t when

he jo ined?

MR. TRENGOVE: The h o s t i l e i n t e n t in committing

o v e r t a c t s .

RUMPFF J: In committing o v e r t a c t s ? ' *

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d , and one of the

o v e r t a c t s he committed was to j o i n the c o n s p i r a c y .

RUMPFF J: I thought the Grown case was t h a t

t h e r e was a c o n s p i r a c y and in pursuance - i t says -

of t h a t c o n s p i r a c y , o v e r t a c t s were committed.

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , but the j o i n i n g of the

c o n s p i r a c y - t h a t was the f i r s t o v e r t a c t , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J: The c o n s p i r a c y , y e s .

MR. TRENGOVE: No, the j o i n i n g of the con-

s p i r a c y .

RUMPFF J: That i s the c o n s p i r a c y in r e s p e c t

of each.

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J: The a c t of c o n s p i r i n g .

1 0 , 5 2 9 .

MR, TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d . 1

RUMPFF J: You can l e a v e out the word ' j o i n i n g '

because t h a t sounds l i k e a membership of a c l u b .

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , t h a t i s the f i r s t over t a c t , my

l o r d ,

RUMPFF J: Yes ; then in regard to t h a t , the con- 5

s p i r a c y to overthrow w i t h h o s t i l e i n t e n t , you gave P a r -

t i c u l a r s ? On which you i n f e r r e d t h a t ?

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J: That i s the c o n s p i r a c y to overthrow the

S t a t e wi th h o s t i l e i n t e n t ? 10

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s .

RUMPFF J: Now y o u ' v e given us t h a t ; so t h a t i s to

what you are l i m i t e d , to show the h o s t i l e i n t e n t . There

I s no c o n s p i r a c y i f t h e r e i s no h o s t i l e i n t e n t .

MR. TRENGOVE: No, my l o r d , but t h e r e may be hos- 1 5

t i l e i n t e n t without a c o n s p i r a c y .

RUMPFF J: We are not concerned wi th t h a t . Your

oase i s a c o n s p i r a c y with h o s t i l e i n t e n t , and you have

s a i d t h a t on these f a c t s I i n f e r the c o n s p i r a c y with

h o s t i l e i n t e n t . I s n ' t t h a t so? 2 0

MR. TRENGOVE: I f your l o r d s h i p puts the p o s i t i o n

l i k e t h a t I a c c e p t i t a t t h i s s t a g e .

RUMPFF J: Y e s .

MR. TRENGOVE: The Crown's submission on i t s

Indic tment , my l o r d , i s t h a t i t may not be n e c e s s a r y 2 5

t o go i n t o that a t t h i s s t a g e , but t h e r e are two e l e -

ments with regard to the o v e r t a c t ; your s t a t e of mind

which must e x i s t b e f o r e you commit the a c t , and then

your p h y s i c a l a c t committed with t h a t s t a t e of mind.

1 0 , 5 3 0 .

Now the membership, or the p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the c o n s p i -

r a c y to overthrow the S t a t e , the o v e r t a c t r e f e r s only

to the p h y s i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the accused .

RUMPFF J: But the c o n s p i r a c y i s the key of your

c a s e ,

MR. TRENGOVE: Oh, y e s , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J; I f y o u ' v e got no c o n s p i r a c y y o u ' v e

got no c a s e .

MR. TRENGOVE; No, my l o r d , I d o n ' t concede t h a t .

RUMPFF J; On your Indictment .

MR. TRENGOVE; No, my l o r d s , I wouldn ' t concede

t h a t .

RUMPFF J; W e l l , I thought t h a t every s i n g l e a c t

here was done in pursuance of a c o n s p i r a c y ; t h a t i s as

a l l e g e d . Now, i f t h a t a c t , however dangerous i t may have

looked or been, was not done in pursuance of a c o n s p i r a c y ,

how can your case stand?

MR. TRENGOVE: My l o r d , a c c e p t i n g t h a t p o s i t i o n

a t the moment, a c c e p t i n g t h a t there i s a conspiracy . .

RUMPFF J; That i s your c a s e .

MR. TRENGOVE: That i s our c a s e , my l o r d .

A c c e p t i n g t h a t p o s i t i o n I s t i l l say t h a t in r e s p e c t

of each i n d i v i d u a l h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h a t c o n s p i r a c y

was preceded by a c e r t a i n mental s t a t e of h o s t i l e i n t e n t .

And t h a t h o s t i l e i n t e n t , with which he p a r t i c i p a t e d in

the c o n s p i r a c y , has not been p a r t i c u l a r i s e d by the Crown.

RUMPFF J: Has i t not been p a r t i c u l a r i s e d ?

That i s the q u e s t i o n .

MR. TRENGOVE: Wel l , my l o r d . . .

BEKKER J . ? I s n ' t t h i s a p o s s i b i l i t y , Mr.

1 0 , 5 3 1 .

Trengove: your f i r s t o v e r t a c t i s a c o n s p i r a c y amongst

the accused and other people to overthrow the S t a t e by

v i o l e n c e cum or p l u s h o s t i l e i n t e n t . You were asked

p a r t i c u l a r s from which you i n f e r t h a t c o n s p i r a c y with

a l l i t s e lements , one of the elements be ing the h o s t i l e

i n t e n t . You suppl ied P a r t i c u l a r s . . .

MR. THENGOVE: No, my l o r d .

BEKKER J; Just t e l l me where I am wrong. I s

not the e f f e c t of your Indictment p l u s f u r t h e r P a r t i c u -

l a r s , t h a t you s e t up a g a i n s t each of the accused as

the f i r s t o v e r t a c t a c o n s p i r a c y ; the second element

be ing to overthrow the S t a t e by v i o l e n c e , and the t h i r d

element being always wi th the h o s t i l e i n t e n t present?

MR. TRSNGOVE; No, my l o r d . May I j u s t g ive

your l o r d s h i p s an example? People e n t e r i n t o a formal

c o n s p i r a c y to overthrow the S t a t e by v i o l e n c e . F ive

or s i x people s ign a document in which they say 'We

hereby agree to work t o g e t h e r f o r the overthrow of the

S t a t e by v i o l e n c e ' , Now the s i g n i n g of t h a t document

i s an o v e r t a c t e Now. in proving w i t h what i n t e n t i o n

each of the accused s igned t h a t document, the Crown

would not be l i m i t e d merely to the f a c t t h a t they s igned

t h a t document,

RUMPFF J: Obviously not , u n l e s s the Crown

l i m i t s i t s e l f to Far ther P a r t i c u l a r s .

MR. TRENG-OVE; My l o r d s , the Crown would be

e n t i t l e d to take extraneous f a c t s to show that each

of the accused in appending h i s s i g n a t u r e to t h a t

document did so w i t h h o s t i l e i n t e n t . Now, the Defence

- the Crown p leads . . .

RUMPFF J: You d i f f e r e n t i a t e between v i o l e n c e

1 0 , 5 3 2 .

and h o s t i l e i n t e n t .

MR. THENGOVE: No, my l o r d s . May I j u s t cont inue?

Now the Crown a l l e g e s t h a t the accused on such and such a

date w i t h h o s t i l e i n t e n t conspired to overthrow the S t a t e

by v i o l e n c e . The Defence say 'From what f a c t s do you

i n f e r t h a t they conspired to overthrow the S t a t e by

v i o l e n c e ? 1 . We say 'The f a c t s from which we i n f e r i t

i s the f a c t t h a t they s igned t h a t document' .

RUMPFF J; Then you say you are e n t i t l e d , w i t h -

out g i v i n g other i n f o r m a t i o n , to b r i n g evidence about

t h e i r s t a t e of mind when they s igned?

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J: Then you d i f f e r e n t i a t e , f o r purposes

of p l e a d i n g , between the h o s t i l e i n t e n t and the v i o l e n c e ,

MR. TRENGOVE: Oh, y e s , my l o r d s , and I can t e l l

your l o r d s h i p s why. Because in terms of the Procedure

Act - - L e i b b r a n d t ' s c a s e , my l o r d s , d i s t i n g u i s h e s v e r y

c l e a r l y between the proof of h o s t i l e s t a t e of mind and

the proof of the o v e r t a c t . The s t a t e of mind need not

be proved by two w i t n e s s e s , my l o r d s . The p h y s i c a l a c t

must be proved by two w i t n e s s e s .

BEKKER J; On your argument, the Indictment

p l u s the Further P a r t i c u l a r s should be construed to

mean p a r t i c u l a r s l i m i t i n g the Crown only to a l l matters

other than h o s t i l e i n t e n t .

MR. TRENGOVE; H o s t i l e i n t e n t , my l o r d .

BEKKER J : And the e x i s t e n c e of the c o n s p i r a c y ,

but not n e c e s s a r i l y the h o s t i l e i n t e n t ? Although

from the matters p a r t i c u l a r i s e d we are asked to i n f e r

h o s t i l e i n t e n t ?

MR. TRENGOVE; Y e s , my l o r d .

1 0 , 5 3 3 .

RUMPFF J: W e l l , w i l l yon j u s t during the

lunch hour g e t the proper sequence of the Indictment,

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d .

(COURT ADJOURNED UNTIL 2 . 1 5 P.M)

BELT 381

ON THE COURT RESUMING AT 2 . 1 5 P.M.

BEKKER J; The Crown has Get I t s e l f the task

of proving the p o l i o y of the defunct Communist Party

during or about the year 1950.

Tothat end the Crown has c a l l e d c e r t a i n Grande * 1 c

as a w i t n e s s , the p r o p r i e t o r of the P ioneer P r i n t i n g X,J

P r e s s a t Cape Town. This wi tness s t a t e d t h a t during the

p e r i o d October 1949 to May 1950 he p r i n t e d seven i s s u e s

of a magazine descr ibed as "Freedom, a Communist b i-monthly"

These i s s u e s were produced and i d e n t i f i e d by him in t h i s

C o u r t . The i s s u e s of "Freedom" he s a i d were p r i n t e d by

him f o r the Communist P a r t y , and h i s charges were debi ted

to and were paid f o r by t h a t P a r t y . A f o o t n o t e appear-

i n g on each i s s u e of "Freedom" reads as f o l l o w s : 'Pub-

l i s h e d a t Room 1 5 , L loyds B l d g s , 58 Berg S t r e e t , Cape-

town by the p r o p r i e t o r Moses Mahane Kotane, 45 Mount

S t r e e t , Cape Town, and p r i n t e d by the P ioneer P r e s s

(Pty) L t d . , , 27 Oxford S t r e e t , Woodstock, Cape.

Mr. de Vos f o r the Crown i n i t i a l l y tendered

c e r t a i n passages appearing in some or a l l of these i s -

sues of "Freedom" in proof of the t r u t h of what was

1 0 , 5 3 4 .

t h e r e i n a s s e r t e d , and argued t h a t a p e r u s a l t h e r e o f 1

would enable t h i s Court to a s c e r t a i n what the p o l i c y

of the Communist P a r t y was a t the time aforementioned.

The r e c e p t i o n of t h i s evidence f o r the above

purpose would in our view of the matter be in d i r e c t

c o n f l i c t w i t h , and v i o l a t e the r u l e s of evidence p r e - 5

e l u d i n g the r e c e p t i o n of hearsay e v i d e n c e , and the

v a r i o u s i s s u e s of "Freedom" may not be used f o r that

purpose *

Mr, de Vos, however, then contended that he did

not seek to introduce the evidence on the b a s i s that 1 0

the documents proved the t r u t h of what was t h e r e i n

a s s e r t e d , and argued t h a t he would ask the Court to

draw c e r t a i n i n f e r e n c e s fror the f a c t t h a t the Communist

P a r t y caused these documents to be p u b l i s h e d , whether

the c o n t e n t s were t r u e or n o t , and from which he would 1 5

l a t e r be enabled to ask the Court to draw c e r t a i n i n -

f e r e n c e s concerning the p o l i c y of the Communist P a r t y .

In the l i g h t of t h i s content ion i t i s necessary

to rer* >rd t h a t t h e r e prima f a c i e proof that the Commu-

n i s t P a r t y paid f o r the p u b l i c a t i o n of these i s s u e s 2 0

of "PReedom" from which i t i s to be i n f e r r e d p o s s i b l y

t h a t the documents were d e l i v e r e d to the P a r t y o f f i c e s

and were in i t s p o s s e s s i o n . There i s no proof t h a t

these documents were ever d i s t r i b u t e d amongst members

of the p u b l i c . 2 5

Counsel f o r the Crown has d i s c l o s e d that

h i s purpose in t e n d e r i n g these documents i s not f o r

t h e i r t e s t i m o n i a l v a l u e , t h a t i s as evidence of the

t r u t h of what they a s s e r t , but f o r t h e i r c i rcumstan-

t i a l va lue to prove something other than the t r u t h

1©. 5 3 5 .

of what i s a s s e r t e d .

A r e f e r e n c e to Halsbury r e v e a l s the f o l l o w i n g :

paragraph 645, Halyesham's e d i t i o n , v o l . 1 3 , 'A s tatement

i s h e a r s a y i f tendered to prove the t r u t h of the f a c t s

a s s e r t e d . I t i s o r i g i n a l ev idence i f i t s m a t e r i a l i t y

depends on the f a c t t h a t i t was made, and not on the

f a c t t h a t i t was p r o v e d . " At t h i s s t a g e i t i s i m p o s s i b l e

f o r u s to a s s e s s in r e l a t i o n to the p o i n t in i s s u e ,

namely the p o l i c y of the Communist P a r t y a t the time

mentioned, the m a t e r i a l i t y of the f a c t t h a t the Commu-

n i s t P a r t y caused t h e s e documents to be p r i n t e d , i r r e s -

p e c t i v e of the q u e s t i o n whether the c o n t e n t s be t rue or

f a l s e . We s h a l l only be in a p o s i t i o n to a s s e s s - to

a p p r e c i a t e the m a t e r i a l i t y of the ev idence a f t e r the

c o n t e n t s have been p l a c e d b e f o r e u s , and p o s s i b l y having

had the b e n e f i t of argument thereon.

In the c i r c u m s t a n c e s the ev idence w i l l be a l low-

ed on a p r o v i s i o n a l b a s i s , namely: t h a t i f in the n e t t

r e s u l t i t emerges t h a t the ev idence i s not m a t e r i a l i t

s h a l l be s t r u c k out of the r e c o r d .

With r e f e r e n c e to a r u l i n g g i v e n by t h i s Court

a t an e a r l i e r s t a g e , to which Mr. K e n t r i d g e has drawn

our a t t e n t i o n , i t seems to me t h a t the q u e s t i o n then

c o n s i d e r e d was not m a t e r i a l . In V o l . 4 7 , a t page 9493?

the Crown sought to p r e s e n t ev idence c o n c e r n i n g a

speech by c e r t a i n W. Mate. The ev idence c o n t i n u e s

a s f o l l o w s : ("Q) W i l l you r e f e r to page 56 of your

n o t e s ; do you have a speaker t h e r e ? — (A) The Chairman,

M a t e . " ("Q) W. M a t e ? — (A) Y e s . " ("Q) The one y o u ' v e

mentioned b e f o r d ? — (A) I cannot say ; t h e r e were two

Mates, one i s W. and the other i s A. Mate, but I did

10

15

20

25

30

1 0 , 5 3 6 .

not put the i n i t i a l down h e r e " . ("Q) W i l l you read what

he s a i d ? —

Mr. Plewman, Counsel f o r the Crown, then i n t e r -

vened in the f o l l o w i n g language: ' I f t h e r e i s no i d e n -

t i t y of e i t h e r an accused or a c o - c o n s p i r a t o r , i t seems

to me t h a t nothing t h a t was s a i d a t t h i s meeting can he

r e l e v a n t or a d m i s s i b l e , and i f there i s no i d e n t i f i c a -

t i o n of. a .person " He was then i n t e r r u p t e d by

Counsel f o r the Crown, Mr. v . d . Walt who s t a t e d : 'That

i s so; i f he cannot i d e n t i f y t h i s person Mate then

there are no accused or no c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s , but I sug-

g e s t t h a t h i s evidence stands because i t was a meeting

of the A f r i c a n N a t i o n a l Congress and should be r e l e v a n t

and a d m i s s i b l e ' .

The Rules wi th r e f e r e n c e to r e c e i v i n g the

evidence of a c o - c o n s p i r a t o r a r e , I t h i n k , c l e a r . In

the c i rcumstances of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r e v i d e n c e , there

i s , or was no evidence to show t h a t the person who spoke

was a c o n s p i r a t o r or a c o - c o n s p i r a t o r a t the t ime, and

there i s no r u l e of evidence which would in our view of

the matter a u t h o r i s e the r e c e p t i o n of t h a t e v i d e n c e ,

whereas in the p r e s e n t c a s e , there i s o r i g i n a l evidence

even though prima f a c i e , thax the Communist P a r t y

p r i n t e d these i s s u e s of "Freedom", the m a t e r i a l i t y

t h e r e o f remains, as has been mentioned e a r l i e r on, to

be seen .

The Order which I make t h e r e f o r e i s the f o l -

l o w i n g : The evidence w i l l be r e c e i v e d on a p r o v i s i o n a l

b a s i s . I f i t emerges t h a t the evidence i s not m a t e r i a l

or r e l e v a n t i t s h a l l be s t r u c k o u t .

RUMPFF J: I a g r e e .

KENNEDY J: I a g r e e .

1 0 , 5 3 7 .

MR. TRENGOVE: As your l o r d s h i p s p l e a s e .

RUMPFF J: Mr. Trengove, do you want to p r o -

ceed wi th the argument now, or must we hear the magis-

t r a t e Mr. Behrmann?

MR. TRENGOVE: My l o r d s , i f my learned f r i e n d

i s in a p o s i t i o n to deal with the m a g i s t r a t e now . .

MR. FISCHER: My l o r d s , the other matter has

prevented one from going back to the problem . . .

RUMPFF J: Wel l , then, you had b e t t e r conclude

your argument.

MR. TRENGOVE: My l o r d s , b e f o r e the adjourn-

ment I was endeavouring to i l l u s t r a t e t h a t the proof

of h o s t i l e i n t e n t need not n e c e s s a r i l y be i n f e r r e d from

the o v e r t a c t i t s e l f , or from the i n t e n t i o n with which

a s p e c i f i c o v e r t a c t was committed. One can go outs ide

the gambit of the evidence required to prove the o v e r t

a c t and o u t s i d e t h a t to prove the h o s t i l e i n t e n t .

KENNEDY J: W e l l , L e i b b r a n d t 1 s case makes

that f a i r l y c l e a r .

MR. TRENGOVE: Yes , my l o r d s , the passage

t h a t I intended to r e f e r theCourt to i s a t page 284

of the Judgment in L e i b b r a n d t 1 s c a s e , 1944, A p p e l l a t e

D i v i s i o n , page 284 to 285. I d o n ! t think i t ' s n e c e s -

s a r y to quote t h a t . Now, my l o r d s , L e i b b r a n d t ' s case

would, of c o u r s e , in my submission apply u n l e s s the

Crown has d e l i b e r a t e l y l i m i t e d i t s e l f in the proof

of the h o s t i l e i n t e n t by the p a r t i c u l a r s t h a t i t sup-

p l i e d . T h e r e f o r e , my l o r d s , i t becomes n e c e s s a r y to

see whether the Crown's mind was ever d i r e c t e d to t h i s

quest ion as to whether the Defence wanted p a r t i c u l a r s

of the h o s t i l e i n t e n t by i t s e l f , and whether the Crown

1 0 , 5 3 8

l i m i t e d i t s e l f in t h a t r e s p e c t . Now, my l o r d s , . .

RUMPFF J; What happened in the case of the f i r s t

Indictment?

MR. TRENGOVE; In the case of the f i r s t Indictment

on t h i s i s s u e , my l o r d , the p o s i t i o n was e x a c t l y the same.

KENNEDY J: Was tide re no request f o r p a r t i c u l a r s

as t o h o s t i l e i n t e n t ?

MR. TRENGOVE: No, my l o r d . There was never any

quest ion as to the f a c t s from which the s t a t e of mind

of the accused was i n f e r r e d .

KENNEDY J; And was i t not r a i s e d by i n f e r e n c e in

the p r e s e n t case?

MR. TRENGOVE: No, my l o r d .

KENNEDY J: D o e s n ' t adherence imply some s o r t of

h o s t i l e i n t B n t , or d o e s n ' t the Crown mean t h a t . .

MR. TRENGOVE: No, my l o r d . Adherence r e l a t e d

to the o v e r t a c t of c o n s p i r a c y only; the Defence wanted

to know from what f a c t s i t i n f e r r e d the adherence of

each accused to the c o n s p i r a c y .

KENNEDY J : The e x i s t e n c e of the c o n s p i r a c y , i s

t h a t something d i f f e r e n t e n t i r e l y from the . . . .

MR. TRENGOVE: The e x i s t e n c e of the c o n s p i r a c y ,

my l o r d , i s something e n t i r e l y s e p a r a t e from the h o s t i l e

i n t e n t .

KENNEDY J: W e l l , speaking f o r myself I was

under the impression t h a t even i f i t was not e x p r e s s l y

s a i d , the Court intended f o r the accused to have b e f o r e

them a l l the m a t e r i a l f a c t s the Crown intended to p r o v e .

MR. TRENGOVE: In r e s p e c t of the matters asked

f o r , my l o r d .

RUMPFF J: Y e s , but now, i f the a l l e g a t i o n

1 0 , 5 3 9 .

i s , h a v i n g regard p a r t i c u l a r l y to the case we are d e a l i n g

wi th h e r e , t h a t there e x i s t e d a c o n s p i r a c y with h o s t i l e

i n t e n t , which intended to overthrow the S t a t e by v i o l e n c e ,

t h a t i s the c o n s p i r a c y ; a c o n s p i r a c y wi thout h o s t i l e

i n t e n t would not be s u f f i c i e n t , would i t ? The Crown's

c a s e .

MR. TRENGOVE: My l o r d s , a c o n s p i r a c y . . .

RUMPFF J; When i t comes to P l e a d i n g s , when i t

comes to the Indic tment , i t says there i s a c o n s p i r a c y

amongst a number of p e o p l e ; t h a t i s a c o n s p i r a c y , wi th

h o s t i l e i n t e n t , to overthrow the S t a t e . That i s an

element of the c o n s p i r a c y , i s n ' t i t ?

MR. TRENGOVE: The element of the c o n s p i r a c y i s

t h a t you conspire to overthrow the S t a t e by v i o l e n c e ,

and . .

RUMPFF J; I t i s not a c o n s p i r a c y to worry about

u n l e s s i t was entered i n t o wi th h o s t i l e i n t e n t ?

MR. TRENGOVE; Oh, y e s , my l o r d , t h a t a p p l i e s in

r e s p e c t of every o v e r t a c t , . .

RUMPFF J : W e l l , I 'm c o n f i n i n g i t to the c o n s p i r a c y .

That a l s o i s a l l e g e d , t h a t i t ' s a c o n s p i r a c y to overthrow

the S t a t e by v i o l e n c e , wi th h o s t i l e i n t e n t .

MR. TRENGOVE: No, my l o r d s . We d o n ' t a l l e g e

a c o n s p i r a c y to overthrow the S t a t e with h o s t i l e i n t e n t .

We say i t ' s a c o n s p i r a c y to overthrow the S t a t e by

v i o l e n c e .

RUMPFF J : Y e s , and a c o n s p i r a c y w i t h h o s t i l e

i n t e n t .

MR. TRENGOVE: No, my l o r d .

BEKKER J: With h o s t i l e i n t e n t you jo ined the

c o n s p i r a c y to overthrow the S t a t e by v i o l e n c e ?

10,540,

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d , t h a t ' s i t .

BEKKER J: But does not t h a t mean a t the time you

were a member you had t h i s p a r t i c u l a r mental element?

MR. TRENGOVE: Oh, y e s , my l o r d . Otherwise i t i s

not an o v e r t a c t , my l o r d s .

RUMPFF J : That i s why we charge you; i t ' s a 5

p e c u l i a r c o n s p i r a c y ; i t has a c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

so f a r as the agreement i s concerned, and as r e g a r d s the

s imte of mind. Now, then, i f there i s a r e q u e s t , "From

what do you i n f e r t h i s c o n s p i r a c y " , t h a t i m p l i e s "From

what do you i n f e r a l l the elements on which you r e l y " . 10

MR. TRENGOVE: Y e s , my l o r d . But t h a t does not

n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t we t h e r e b y exc lude a l l - or i n c l u d e

a l l the elemnts on which we need r e l y to prove h o s t i l e

i n t e n t .

KENNEDY J: No, no, but w a s n ' t i t intended under 15

the . .

MR. TRENGOVE: May I take some other o v e r t a c t ?

RUMPFF J : May I j u s t ask you t h i s q u e s t i o n .

Have you, up to t h i s s t a g e , has the Crown up to t h i s

s t a g e l e d any ev idence of whatever n a t u r e which i s not 20

covered by the P a r t i c u l a r s ?

MR. TRENGOVE: My l o r d s . . . .

RUMPFF J : Has i t sought to l e a d ev idence of

whatever nature c o n c e r n i n g the h o s t i l e i n t e n t of any

of the a c c u s e d , which f a l l s o u t s i d e the P a r t i c u l a r s ? 25

MR. TRENGOVE: My l o r d , the Crown has l e d such

a l o t of ev idence t h a t I 'm not in a p o s i t i o n t o s a y ,

but I do know t h a t in c e r t a i n c a s e s we have l e d ev idence

which did not n e c e s s a r i l y f a l l w i t h i n our Schedules and

we 've a lways taken up the a t t i t u d e , my l o r d s , t h a t t h a t 30

Collection: 1956 Treason Trial Collection number: AD1812

PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand Location:- Johannesburg ©2011

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.