[?]ornton Deported

[?]est Ends Four [?]rs' Residence [?]ornton Deported [?]om Fiji

3E forcible deportation of Jack Thornton, from Fiji, in mid- November, shows the powers sessed by the Government of in regulating immigration. No may become a resident in that ntry unless he can prove he has quate means of support, hornton entered the Colony, at it four years ago, as a casual tor, under which he was auto ucally allowed to remain three iths. He wandered around the nds, and did irregular newspaper k; and when the Fijian author > eventually asked him to either 7 e that he earned an income quate for his support or leave country, he did neither, lien Fiji officialdom became in mt, and initiated Court proceed ;, Thornton secured legal help, seedings extended over years, lower court issued an order deportation, and Thornton’s rneys appealed to the Supreme rt. implications were introduced in , when Thornton —through the e attorneys—issued a writ out he Fiji Supreme Court against R. W. Robson, publisher of ■fie Islands Monthly and, at that ‘, managing director of Fiji es and Herald Ltd. Mr. Thorn claimed damages for libel, re alleged libel was not con ed with either the Fiji Times he Pacific Islands Monthly. An ;le was published in Sydney etin in June, 1956, traducing the Administration. Mr. Robson, in rticle in Sydney Bulletin of July •56, said the June article was a e of exaggeration and falsehood, declared it was characteristic :he work of a class of inv isible journalists, some of whom been attacking the Fiji Public tions Office. le case came before the Fiji vme Court in May, 1957. Thorn claimed that, because during a editorship of an inconspicuous :ly newspaper in Fiji he had rently criticised the PRO, he identified as an irresponsible aahst. The Court, after a hear ixtending over a fortnight, found Thornton had been identified, awarded £lO damages. ■ • Robson lodged an appeal in , mainly on the grounds of mis sion of the jury by the judge; in November, when he learned iquiry that there was no chance is plea being heard before the of 1957, he withdrew the appeal. ie Fiji authorities aonarently /ed Thornton some latitude on

account of this pending libel action.

But immediately that hearing term inated, last May, the deportation proceedings were resumed. Thorn ton’s appeal to the Supreme Court finally was heard in October, and dismissed. He was warned that he must obey the deportation order. He remained in Fiji.

He was arrested on November 15, taken to Nadi under police guard, and put on a Pan-American plane for London, on the 17th.

Thornton is believed to have come to Fiji from New Zealand; but, for some reason, he was deported to England—probably because he was reared in England, and travelled on an English passport. Apart from the various expenses of legal pro ceedings against him, the cost of transporting Thornton from Suva to London probably cost the Fiji Gov ernment about £3OO.

Thornton and Newspaper

Publicity

A S was expected, Mr. Thornton has not gone quietly. He is “working the newspapers”.

The day after he was arrested in Suva, there appeared in The Herald, of Melbourne, a story sensationally headed to suggest that a well known editor and journalist (Thornton) had been brutally seized and de ported without good and sufficient reason. The Herald’s “special corres pondent” in Fiji supplied material which, as published, gave a one sided description of the incident, plus an intimate biography and a photo graph of Mr. Thornton in a beard and a hat, both highly decorative.

According to this, Mr. Thornton had been crucified.

Within a few days of his arrival In London, some of the newspapers there published an article comment ing upon the brutality of this de portation—the unhappy Mr. Thorn ton, it appeared, had arrived in London in mid-winter, garbed only in tropical clothes and sandals. (It was not stated that Mr. Thornton had had many weeks’ warning of his pending deportation).

Knowing the ways of officialdom, we expect that the Secretary of State for the Colonies in London thereupon cabled to the Governor of Fiji for his comments upon this cruel deportation; and, knowing the facts of the case, we can imagine the kind of reply made by the Gov ernor of Fiji.

Scores probably hundreds —of persons have been refused per mission to reside permanently in Fiji unless they could satisfy the Immigration authority there that (a) they had guaranteed employ ment into which they could enter immediately; or (b) they had suf ficient private means to support them in a suitable way.

Thornton, who apparently came from New Zealand and had been in and around the South Pacific Islands for some years, was unable to meet the requirements of the Fiji Immigration officials. Except for a few months, when apparently he was employed by a small weekly journal m Suva, he had no regular job, and he did not show the officials that he had resources sufficient to maintain him otherwise. He defied the Government, and caused a lot of trouble and expense by appealing to the Supreme Court.

Neither officialdom nor courts could see why he should be treated differently from anyone else who could not satisfy Immigration re quirements; and so he was forcibly removed.

The latter facts have not been presented by the newspapers which have published comments upon

Thornton’s deportation.-

Rwr.