The Crooks

Ward Exonerated—Carden And Farrell Were

Judges Findings In The New Guinea Timber Lease Inquiry

THE report of the Australian Royal Commissioner (Mr. Justice Ligertwood) on the New Guinea Timber Lease Inquiry, made public on June 24, contained no surprises. As was pointed out by the “PIM” in April and May, the nature of the evidence placed before the Commission made it certain that the Commissioner would completelv exonerate the Australian Minister for External Territories, Mr. E. J. Ward, of any charge involving corruption or an improper interest in the alleged sale of a New Guinea timber concession to the Queensland timber merchants. Hancock and Gore Ltd.

The Commissioner’s report covered 95 pages; but the substance of his findings is in his answers to the five terms of reference, as follows; — 1 Txru i. TT7^Q h What were real transactions msolved between Raymond Parer Harand Hancock Limited f

n?its rifrertnr?

in’ Umberriehts

rnfnpno g

m iNew omnea.

FINDING: The transaction embodied in the two deeds was a barefaced fraud by Farrell and J. S. Garden upon Hancock and Gore, Ltd.

By false pretences they induced Hancock and Gore to buy a non-existent timber concession and to pay them £50,000 on account of the purchase money.

Raymond Parer and Harcourt Garden

were involved in the transactions, and their conduct was morally censurable, but a jury had acquitted them of criminal complicity.

The working directors of Hancock and Gore, Ltd. (which did not include Mr. E.

R. Crouch nor Sir William Glasgow), were induced to enter into the transac tion by their greed for timber and by their desire to get into Bulolo Valley ahead of their rivals.

They were prepared to enter into a secret transaction which, because of J. S.

Garden’s position as a public servant, was improper.

They were aware of the impropriety, and were ready to take advantage of it, seeking to salve their consciences with the reflection that they were dealing with the syndicate, and were paying full value for the timber, and that the means by which the syndicate became possessed of the grant, and what they did with the purchase money were no concern of theirs.

So much did they realise the impro priety of the transaction, that for three and a half years, notwithstanding the fact that £50,000 was involved, they were afraid to approach the Minister of the Department to see if there was any sub stance in what they thought they had bought.

Hancock and Gore’s solicitor (Mr. E.

E. Biggs) co-operated with the working directors in negotiating the transaction with similiar knowledge of its impro priety. He failed in his duty to advise

tht company properly and to secure it against loss.

The company’s logging manager (Mr. H.

G. Forshaw) also assisted in negotiations with knowledge of the impropriety of the transaction. 2. Was the Minister for External Terri tories (Mr. E. J. Ward) a party to any of the transactions?

Finding; No.

3. Did the Minister sign or authorise John Smith Garden to sign any notification that the grant to Raymond Parer of any timber licence in the Bulolo Valley had been or would be approved by the Minister?

Finding; No.

4. Was the Minister promised any finan cial benefit from any of the transac tions mentioned or did he receive— either directly or indirectly—any financial benefit from that company?

Finding; No.

5. Was the Minister (a) financially in terested—either directly or indirectly— in Sydney Pincombe, Ltd.; (b) did he receive—either directly or indirectly— any financial benefit from that com pany?

Finding; No.

Concerning Mr. Farrell

Mr. Justice Ligertwood said that the authorities should consider criminal pro secution against Edward Farrell.

He added: “There were many indica tions that Farrell was the master mind in carrying out the Hancock and Gore transaction.

“Medical evidence showed that since 1948 his health had improved consider ably.”

When John Smith Garden, Harcourt Garden, and Raymond Parer came to trial in November last year on charges

(Continued on Page 31)

of conspiracy, Judge Holt adjourned a similar charge against Farrell because of Farrell’s ill-health. On January 7 last, after a jury had acquitted the Gardens and Parer, the Crown dropped the charge against Farrell.

Concerning Mr. Garden

Mr. Justice Ligertwood commented on the position and status of John Smith Garden and Royden Murray Service Cformer manager of Army Inventions Directorate) He said: “Each of them was brought temporarily into the public service and was given a responsible office.

“Each of them was allowed a measure of trust and discretion outside the routine of the department to which he was at tached.

“Each of them betrayed his trust.

“The necessities of the time and the sudden expansion of the Public Service may have made it desirable, if not neces sary, to create offices like those held by Garden and Service.

“But this inquiry has emphasised that the utmost care should be exercised in selecting persons to fill such offices and defining and supervising their duties and activities.”

Concerning Mr. Halligan

“In marked contrast was the secretary and permanent head of the Department of External Territories (Mr. J. R. Halli gan) who, over a long period, faithfully discharged his administrative duties.

Concerning Mr. Ward

Mr, Justice Ligertwood said that he saw no reason to doubt any portion of Mr. Ward’s evidence. He added: “Mr. Ward gave his evidence openly and frankly, and with an air of sincerity and truth.

“Allegations that Mr. Ward was a party to the corrupt transaction and received

£5,000 on account of his share of the purchase money depend entirely on Gar den.

“I find it impossible to give credence to Garden’s story. It comes from a man who, in its very telling, confesses himself engaged in the most corrupt transaction.

“His story shows signs of having been designed to fit in with the indisputable facts and of having been changed from time to time to meet new facts.

“In marked contrast was Mr. Ward’s evidence.”

Mr. Ward Resumes

Mr, Ward immediately resumed con trol of the Department of External Terri tories. He was, at his own request, re lieved of that portfolio six months ago, pending inquiry by a Royal Commission. (Our editorial comment upon this case is published elsewhere in this issue.)