FORBIDDING OF PUBLICATION

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24911, 26 June 1946, Page 8

FORBIDDING OF PUBLICATION

ORDER OF RESCISSION SOUGHT APPLICATION BEFORE LAND SALES COMMITTEE Decision was reserved by the Urban Land Sales Committee yesterday after the hearing of an application by Mr K. M. Gresson to rescind an order forbidding publication of part of the proceedings of a case considered several ■weeks ago by the committee. The case concerned an application by W. F. and G. Nitschke to sell a house in Rugby street to M. R. Torrance for £2550. Mr L. B. Freeman presided, and with him were Messrs T. W. West and B. J. McKenna. Mr Gresson represented the vendors, Mr R. C. Saunders the purchasers. and Mr A. C. Perry watched the proceedings for the Canterbury District Law Society. Mr D. G. Ward was the Crown representative. Mr Gresson held that under section 20 of the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act, 1943, it was open to question whether the order for suppression was made validly. He asked to have it rescinded, on the ground that it was not warranted. Addressing reporters at the opening of yesterday’s proceedings, Mr Freeman said: “You are not to include in your report of these proceedings any mention of what transpired at the earlier hearing—that having been suppressed—unless and until this committee gives you permission to publish it”

Mr Gresson submitted that no com- ■* munication of any kind had been made or sent to him concerning the order for suppression; and that if any such order had been made, it was during his absence, when the sitting of the committee had concluded and counsel had left. It was fundamental, he said, that the committee administer the act in the sight of all. and that the press—“watchdog of public interest”—should be free to publish 'what it saw fit. It was a difficult act to administer, but the administration of it must be scrupulously fair and within the public eye. “The Crown is a party to every application, and its obligation is to be utterly and entirely fair,” Mr Gresson added. His concluding remarks had reference to what had transpired at the earlier hearing. An application for costs against the Crown was made by Mr Saunders, representing the purchasers. The application was based on “excessive delay” in dealing with the original application. “We have had cause to comment on delays in other cases in the past,” said Mr Saunders. “This has been particularly in regard to new properties, applications for which have sometimes taken two months to come before the committee. In this case, the contract for sale was signed- on March 6 and filed on March 18. Nine weeks ater the first hearing took place; the final hearing was three weeks later, when the committee reserved its decision. Its finding was given a few days later. “The purch ser was precluded from making offers for another property in the meantime.” Mr Saunders continued. “The vendor had arrangements in hand to take over a business. in the North Island, but the excessive delay was the entire cause for the breakdown of these arrangements. He now refuses to sell. It is not a question of the price, but entirely because of the long delay. The purchaser will now have to look round for another property, but the market is quiet and few properties are available.” Submitting that the delay had been caused by unfair protraction on the part of the Crown. Mr Saunders made an application for costs. Mr Ward, in reply to Mr Saunders, said that he understood that the main cause of the .delay was the failure of the vendor’s solicitor to supply particulars of work done and to be done * on the property. “While such information was not available, the department was unable to make its valuation,” he said. ______