DIVORCE AND PUBLICITY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1011, 29 December 1910, Page 4

DIVORCE AND PUBLICITY.

The Commission which ,has been taking evidence and collecting statistics on the. subject of divorce and the law relating thereto devoted a good deal' of attention to the question of the pubJ ii-.iy ghvn to Divorcc Court proceedings. In Europe and America the Commission found that erally speaking the practice was for the Court to sit with closed doors or to limit the publication of the proceedings. This practice, those who follow Court proceedings will recogniso, is growing in favour with our Judges in New Zealand. The law Hermits a Judge to take such cases

as ho considers advisable in camera, or to instruct tiic press representatives present that details, of evidence must not be published, and it is becoming a common thing for this to be done, Tho object in view is 3 of course, to prevent the publication of details of an unsavoury nature. This precaution no doubt is unnecessary so far as the bulk of the press of the Dominion is concerned, for there is no desire on their part to serve up such stuff to their readers. But there arc papers ready to publish every detail, and the restriction sometimes imposed by the Court unquestionably has a good effect in preventing the circulation of a lot of very unwholesome, and, on occasions, very disgusting, evidence. There is, however, another side to tho question. A number of representative members of the English press gave evidence before the Divorce Commission; and it was practically the unanimous opinion of these gentlemen that reasonable publicity in divorcc cases was a very wholesome deterrent. That the publication of full reports was in many cases the most serious punishment that could be imposod. Mr. Moberley Bei.l, of The'Timcs, while he recognised.the possibly bad effect of even carefully-worded reports, was amongst those strongly of opinion that their publication was feared and must act as a deterrent. "Provided they were reported with a due regard for decency," he added, "the good outweighed the evil." This, no doubt, is correct. One of the suggestions made before the Divorcc Commission to ensure that Divorcc Court reports should be purged of matter unfit for general circulation was the licensing • by the Court of Divorce Court reporters, who would have to sign their reports. The Court having power to revoke the licenses of such reporters would exercise . an influence which would fjo far to ensure the propriety of the reports. For ourselves we arc inclined to favour the practice now pursued in our local Court. The .Judges hero exerciso their discretion, as to whether or not a .case is one that should be hoard in private; and in any case the parties concerncd do not escape a ccrtain amount of publicity, the names of. those. concerned and the grounds on which the petition for divorce is based being,.publi'shajjle. Oc-. casionally -: offenders who thoroughly deserve exposure may escap'o their full deserts, but on the whole the public interest is n'robably best served by the Court being empowered to exercise its discretion in the manner stated.