LIBEL WRIT ARGUED

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27397, 9 July 1954, Page 11

LIBEL WRIT ARGUED

Commission Sees No Contempt (Rec. 10 p.m.) MELBOURNE, July •• When the Petrov hearing resumed today Rupert Lockwood, a Sydney journalist, and his counsel. Mr E. r. Hill, a Melbourne barrister, were seated at the Bar table. Addressing the commission. Mr Hill submitted that the commission was in contempt of the High Court in considering matters relating to document “J.” (Earlier in the bearing, Mr W . J V. Windeyer, Q.C., senior counsel assisting the commission, alleged that Lockwood was the author of document “J” which Mr Windeyer. in Canberra on May 17 described as “a farrago ox facts, falsities and filth.” Last Tuesday, Lockwood took out a High Court writ against Mr Windeyer and the Commonwealth, claiming £lO.OOO for damage to his personal reputation.) Mr Hill submitted that any statement or comment which could prejudice the trial in a Court was a contempt of that Court. He accepted the position that their honours were not sitting in a judicial capacity. Mr Hill referred to a case in whicn a Royal Commission had been set up to» inquire into the formation and the activities of a certain industrial organisation m New South Wales. He said that the point was taken that it was inquiring into matters which were within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Arbitration Court and that therefore the Royal Commission was interfering with the course of justice. It was stated that if there was an interference with the course of the administration of justice by a Royal Commission then it was a contempt of Court and so unlawful. “Any interference with the administration of justice by a Royal Commission is a contempt of Court and is unlawful. Your Honours should not. in any circumstances, be a party to any contempt of the High Court.” Mr Justice Philp: You say it will be

contempt for us to proceed? Mr Hill: Yes, your Honour. Mr Justice Philp: How is it contempt of Court if we asked Lockwood in the witness box if he wrote document “J” I cannot see it. Mr Hill: The High Court writ covers the allegation that Lockwood is the author of document “J.” Yet no one will deny that Mr Windeyer made grossly defamatory statements of Mr Lockwood Mr Justice Philp: But how is It contempt of court to ask him the question? He can refuse to answer. Mr Hill: Mr Lockwood’s refusal to answer the question might affect the administration (of justice. Mr Justice Philp: That is his contempt. Mr Justice Ligertwood: If everyone who is mentioned in the inquiry issued a High Court writ they would stop the commission. Mr Hill: That strikes no horror in me. If the commission is doing something which is illegal Mr Justice Ligertwood: No, no. We are doing what Parliament tells us to do. Mr Justice Owen: Why not test it, Mr Hill. Mr Hill: It may very well come to that. “No Contempt” Mr Windeyer said there could be no contempt of any tribunal unless the issues were in some way involved. The questions he had Indicated were significant. The issues before the High Court had not been formulated. The persons who it was suggested should be made defendants were not yet defendants. They had been named in a ' writ, but they were not required to do anything. The writ might remain . in the High Court for ever. It had . not been served, and that was not, he suggested, a matter without significance.

The hearing was adjourned to consider Mr Hill’s submission. When it resumed, Mr Justice Owen said: “The submission made by Mr Hill is that the commission should refrain from proceding further with any inquiry affecting his client because his client has issued a writ for defamation against the Commonwealth and one of the counsel assisting us. “As we have said earlier, we are of the opinion that the contents of document ‘J,’ the identity of its author and his conduct is relevant to this inquiry. This commission is not appointed by the Crown under its prerogative powers, but by statute. In view of the information placed before us as to the High Court writ, we are of opinion that to proceed with the inquiry would not constitute contempt of Court. If the issue of a writ of this nature, after the commission has entered on its inquiry, automatically stays our hand, the power of tne Commonwealth to inquire into any matter of public concern is so seriously hampered that it is almost worthless. In so holding, we may be wrong, but it can be tested in appro-* priate proceedings. “We think. Mr Windeyer, you should not make any opening address in connexion with exhibit ‘J.’ ”