Description

Extended Data

index

880.0

para

Captain Harrison disallowed my appeal, but said it would be forwarded to Navy Office for their consideration when we reached Newcastle on the 13th September. On the 15th September I was transferred to Long Bay Penitentiary, where I received the same treatment as other prisoners. Time after time I wrote to theBrisbane and to the Navy Office to ask about the appeal, but it was not until half my sentence was completed that I received word through the governor that Navy Office could not consider any appeal. So for three months I suffered all that a prisoner can suffer, with the added knowledge that my allotment to my wife was stopped, and she was left to shift for herself. On 28th November, 1928, I was discharged from Long Bay and from the Navy, without being paid the £40 deferred pay due to me. I wrote to the Naval Secretary twice before being informed that having been discharged from the Service, " Services no longer required," I was not entitled to payment. Shortly after my release I went aboard the Brisbane, in order to obtain a copy of the Summary of Evidence, but the Commander refused to see me,but said that Navy Office would not allow me a copy. Finally, I was ordered off the ship, and since then I. believe a notice has been posted on Garden Island to the effect that I am to be refused entry to the island or to any of H.M. Ships. Molineux, Ex Stoker, H.M.A.S. Brisbane. 25th January, 1929. Copy of Appeal. I, Walter Francis Molineux, stoker, official number 18154, hereby give notice of appeal against the sentence of 90 days' imprisonment in Long Bay Penitentiary, with hard labour, awarded me on board H.M.A.S. Brisbane, by Warrant No. 10, dated 31st August, 1928. The following are my grounds for appeal: - Warrant No. 10 was read under section 43 of the Naval Discipline Act, the charge being, "For that he then being a person subject to the Naval Discipline Act, was guilty of an act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline in that he did type poetry, the subject matter of which is subversive to naval discipline." This alleged charge does not come under Article 43 of the Naval Discipline Act. vide Manual of Naval Law and Court Martial Procedure, page173 (Stevens, Clifford and Smith, 4th edition) : vide also section 43, note (p), page 77 of Admiralty Memorandum on Naval Court Martial Procedure. I have been punished on a charge which I definitely stated I did not understand, a definition of the said charge being refused meby Captain Harrison. In the absence of any proof of any intention on my part of publishing, distributing or otherwise communicating to a second party, or exhibiting in any shape or form the poetry which I typed, I have not committed a breach of naval discipline. The prosecution has proved nothing more than my admission - that I typed poetry. Iwish to have a full and careful reexamination and investigation of the case brought against me with a view to producing evidence which will prove that I am the victim of prejudice and conspiracy in so far as I was retained, in contravention of King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, article 1510, clause 2, in the engineer's office by a deliberate attempt to assist, inveigle and otherwise aid and abet my committing an offence which could be made the nature of a charge. I produced two witnesses in support of this, Chief Writer Meredith and a leading writer, name not known, who were told by the senior engineer, Lieutenant R. Rowlands, that I had been retained in the office with this purpose in view.