The Dominion. SATURDAY, MARCH 18, 1911. SECRET COURTS OF JUSTICE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1079, 18 March 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, MARCH 18, 1911. SECRET COURTS OF JUSTICE.

0 It is nccessary to again direct public attention to the practicc \\ v hich is growing up in our law courts of excluding the press and the public from the hearing of actions not only involving large private interests, but affecting, possibly, public interests as well. A little more than a month ago a member of the Supreme Court Bcnch, Mr. Justice Edwards, made it very clear that he had no sympathy with Star Chamber methods, and that he had every confidence in the discretion of the press. His Honour on that occasion refused the request of counsel to deal in camera with tho question before the Court, and passed severe strictures on the actions of certain persons in .attempting to influence the Court by means of private communications. We felt called on to comment on his Honour's attitude, to express our hearty approval of his outspokenness, and to support his recognition of the serious danger underlying any suspicion that our Courts of Justice were susceptible to any influences outside the merits of actions as disclosed in evidence before the Court. AVe revert to the subject bccausc of the attitude of the Court in an action which has now been before the Supreme Court for something like four years, and which has not yet received publicity. The Judges of the Supreme Court, in the exercise of their functions, have of ncccssity_ to deal with a number of matters incidental and preliminary to proceedings before the Courts. Such matters arc generally taken in Chambers, but for many years past throughout the Dominion the newspapers have reported proceedings in Chambers, and we do not know of any case where this privilege—or, more properly, right—has been abused. Naturally purely private matters arc left alone, bccausc, quite outside the fact that they arc of no public concern, the good taste of the newspapers, which the Judges themselves have frequently praised, can be safely trusted to ensure that the right and proper thing will be done. Unfortunately in recent cases in our own Court, the press, as mentioned above, have been excluded on the order of the _ Judge, conveyed through the Registrar. No reason was given for this departure from tho previously established practicc. It has been judicially decided in England that to publish an account of evidence where a case has been heard in camera is punishable as a contempt, but in the ease in question the Judge himself was careful to explain that it was only in special circumstances that the Court was justified in sitting in camera. Moreover, ho emphasised the desirableness of tho Courts of Justice being open to the public. Ifc is perhaps as well that the learned Judge's views should be published in some detail: Tho general rule (his ITonour remarked) i 3 an excellent 0110 that legal proceedings should bo public, and if it were departed from tho great weight which legal decisions carry with them, in this case would bo deservedly diminished. But to this rule certain exceptions are proper and necessary. One ground of exception is, if a public hearing would have tho effect of disclosing what it is tho whole object of tho action to keep concealed, or of making known to the world a secret process. The hearing in private, wholly or in part, of cases in which public decency and morality require it to bo done, is also familiar not only in the Divorco Courts, but also in the ordinary Criminal and Civil Courts. So also eases relating to lunatics aro constantly heard iu private, and cases as to wards, in order that tlio ward or lunatic may not be prejudiced. No one, we think, can take exception to the exercise of a proper discretion by the Court, such as indicated by Mr. Justice North in the quotation from his ruling published above. • If, however, the matter , touches upon the honour or honesty of particular porsons or concerns questions as to tho methods adopted by tho Courts to jyotoct tho interests oi

persons who seek a remedy from the Court, then it appears to us, and it must appear to every thoughtful person, in the highest degree dangerous to the proper administration of justice to take such proceedings in camera. It might suit all parties to the proceedings that they be private. But there is a greater question involved than the mere wishes of the parties. If a question is a public question, such, for instance, as one involving matters of commercial morality, the public has a right to hear of it, and the newspapers have a solemn duty to publish such matters, whether they concern the rich or the poor. Should the persons concerned hold public offices, or bo engaged in business of any kind demanding public trust and confidence, then all the more reason is there that the fullest publicity should be given to the proceedings so far as they affect the honour or honesty of those parties. We do not know the reason for the exclusion of the report-' ers, and the suppression by order of the Court of the publication of even the names of the parties in an action how before the Court. If the ease comes within the exceptions quoted by Mr.' Justice Noiith, ' it! would have been a simple matter for the Court to- so inform the press and the public. But such information has not been supplied, and an uneasy feeling exists in consequence. Wo should be sorry indeed to find it necessary to take the extreme step of ignoring the wishes of any of his Majesty's Judges in a matter affecting the procedure of our Courts of Justice. But great as is our recognition of tho duty of every loyal and honest citizen to uphold the Supreme Court Bench in the just performance of its high and honourable functions; we have a still greater sense of the responsibility devolving on every citizen to protect'the Courts of Justice from any taint of suspicion that the law as administered therein is not even-handed'. The strongest safeguard which our Courts possess—the surest way to retain tho profound public confidence which has been reposed in them in the past—is to throw wide the doors of the Courts of Justice to the public and to the press. Tho individual at times may suffer hardship, but the ends of justice will be better served. AVe have refrained from comments on the action now being heard in private locally, although we are strongly of opinion that the Court would have better studied the public interest by taking the later stages of the action in open Court. We may find it necessary to emphasise that point in a subsequent issue.