THE SECRET CASE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1084, 24 March 1911, Page 6

THE SECRET CASE.

NAMES PUBLISHED. COMMENrS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. ' In yesterday's issue a printer's error made our reference to the case which the Chief Justice has been dealing with in private obscure. Our paragraph read, "Security has been lodged or ordered, etc. This, of course,. should have, been security has been lodged, as ordered, and if .tho other formalities are complied with the -action.may bo looked ,fi>r in tho Appeal Court,before April : 10. - The' secrecy which has shrouded the case is. gradually being ,broken. One paper .at least, tho Dunedin "Star, has published the names of the .parties, with the additional statement that; the action has reference to -the administration of trust'moneys. This appeared in tho issue of the "Star" .of'.Tuesday, last. Newspapers ■in other ■ parts'of .the Dominion continue to comment on tho action of the Court in insisting on secrecy,' and the protest against secret sittings is practically unanimous. o reproduce below Eonie of the latest comments of our contemporaries:—

"The Wellington Mystery." Tho "Lyttelton Times" of Wednesday, ! March 22, 1911, .says: "The. Chief Justice has taken a very grave responsibility upon himself in forbidding the publication of ' even tho barest particulars of the case that'is now exciting so much curiosity arid in Wellington. There can ; be'no question about his right to exclude the representatives of the press from Chambers sittings of the Supreme Court, 2nd we may still hope that he has shown a wise discretion in exercising his . right 1 in this particular instance; but it is obvious- from the protests that are being made by responsible citizens, as well', as from the disagreeable suggestions ot the . jian.in the street, that a good deal of unpleasant suspicion has been aroused. -Lhe oosition is made all the more extraordinary by the fact that, the names of, the par- ' ties to'the case and the nature ortheir -/'dispute! are perfectly well known to a great number :of ■ people. Sir Robert Stout's interdiction does not prevent . these people discussing the merits of the .case with tho utmost freedom, and circulating the wildest rumours, concerning ; the course it is taking, but it debars the .newspapers from printing a sipcle word that might set the public anxiety at rest. : That the press might have.been safely trusted with the confidence of the Court is proved by the respect with which it has accepted the Judge's injunction. It, has not been restrained by /any fear of tho penalties that are provided ;for the offence known as 'contempt;' but by a desire to assist in preserving the dignity of the Court and in upholding its authority. ■ib"'should be-discovered later on that the. newspapers havo been silenced improperly or even- unnecessarily.-they will have to reconsider how far the practice of taking cases of this'kind in cameraman be allowed to interfere with their duty to their readers. They could not continue, to submit, to an authority that placet! the passing convenience of litigants before the vital interests'of the public." ■ ■

■ : "Thai' Mysterious Case." - We have not the. least doubt (says the "Wairarapa Daily Times of •'■March 22), (hat the motive of thfe Chief Justice in forbidding publication of any of the , details of _a case heard by-him in Wellington recently was 'of the best: but the course, he adopted was so'unusual that'it has defeated the purpose he had in view. The men, who conduct newspapers are always wiljini; to suppress.-the publication of anj.Biing '-,'ivlien , it' 'is.7.shown that such publication would serve no good'purpose. But everyone recognises that the liberty of the press must be very jealously guarded, and the Wellington newspapers uatu- : xally'enough refused to submit quietly to Sir Robert Stout's curt" order that the details of;a case be not published, unless well satisfied that Sir Robert Stout had Rood-reasons for this course of action. The Chief Justice refused to give any reason: "That is my order—obey it" was, in effect, ' his reply to the determined questions of The.Dominion reporter. The remarkable attitude adopted by the Chief Justice has aroused curiosity and has de--1 feated the purpose tho Chief Justice had in view.' Gossip' has been stimulated, and' every .man one meets in the street is able to. furnish one with full particulars of the mysterious case. The main facts ieem to agree, but the details of the case appear'in each story to be fearfully mangair since it is generally • believed that the case deals with money matters and- a politician, the comments of the man in the street do not show any great respect for our system of justice. '-How-much more satisfactory if the casp had been reported fairly in the newspapers, or some good and sufficient reason been given for the suppression of' the facts!

"In Chambers." The action of the- Chief Justice in prohibiting any newspaper report of proceedings "In Chambers" in respect to a case in which; a member of the Legislature figures prominently has (says the Christchurch "News" of Monday last) at any rate let the public know something of tho powers possessed by the Supreme Court Bench. There has been a tendency, for some years past to circumscribo the activity ol' the press in respect to the publication of reports of legal proceedings, and in recent statutes express provisions have been included for tho purpose of giving the Courts - some control over tho publication of reports. From ■time to time newspapers have protested ngainst this policy, but in its passion for regulating pretty well every phaso of the life of tho community, the legislature has turned a deaf ear to any suggestion that it is a retrograde step to tamper ■with tho freedom of the press. In the caso which has caused such an immense amount of public discussion, it is not a question -of our Legislature conferring any express authority on the Court to say whether or not the public interest is .sorted by its secrecy: it is one of tho Court exercising its undoubted right, legardlcss of what laymen may. think of.its propriety, in hearing and determining matters behind closed doors. According to one authority, the first statutory sanction of tho work of judges in Chambers was given in 1821. The practice has sincf! become firmly established and recognised. But tho judges themselves, in this country at any rate, have frequently shown a disposition to treat a Chambers sitting of the Court as an ordinary sitting minus some of tho usual forms and ceremonies. Sir. Justice Williams, Mr. Justico Pennistfln, and other distinguished occupants . of tho Supreme Court Bench have invariably allowed the press representatives access to sittings of the Court in CI am- , 'bers, infercntially emphasising the propriety of making tho proceedings of tho Court as open as possible. Nor is there nny need to argue at this stage the desirability of such a policy. The strength of our judicial system is neither more nor less than the strength of tho public's faith in the integrity of the judges. And when everything his Majesty's judges do is done in broad daylight, there .s not much scope for the formation of unfavourable impressions as to the administration of justice. Tho disappointed litigant may be disposed to question the capacity of a judge as wise as Solomon, but it will not occur to him to question the Court's probity and rectitude if the case has been tried in public. It is easy to see, therefore, that though convenience may bo served by taking proceedings in Chambers, public policy demands that ihere should bo a minimum of secrecy obout these proceedings. It must be assumed for the present that the Wellington case comes within tho category of those which are entitled to be heard in private; that the rights of innocent parties would bo prejudiced by publicity, and that the public interest would not bo perved. If it should subsequently be discovered that this is not so, then a viry serious question will arise, and the Legislature may be moved to prescribe in sta- ■ tutory terms the degree of publicity that is to attach to Supreme Court proceedings in future.

"The Trial in Secret." ■ The-Napier ."Telegraph" of -March 22 oomments on the case as follows:—"It is reported in Wellington—perhaps wrongly,-who is to-judge?—that the ease in which the parties must not be named, the ease from which the press is barred out, the case which we inay hope will yet give Parliament somo exercise, turns upon a will, a person connected with the Parliament of New Zealand, some beneficiaries under the will who thought themselves wronged, an order by consent against somebody to pay a-large sum of money, a writ of attachment, and various other things, all of which, when brought before a.Court, ought to be dealt with in public. As a matter of fact much worse than this is said. But, as asked above, who can tell, who is to judge? This is the worst of trying to foist upon a -community the tactics of tho Council of Ten or of the Star Chamber! Possibly quits innocent happenings beeomc converted by rumour into crimes. Tho public, for oxaiiiple, has no right .to assume anything wrong, anything right,' or. anything at all but one thing, concerning the secret trial. This is that the trial is secret. But, although the public has lio right to assume, it will assume. It will'inquire, it. will listen to rumours, it will give credence to some of them or all of them or none of them as it happens to be moved. The result is mischievous. It tends to cause distrust in our judicial' institutions, and if this is not to be regarded as a misfortune, then both times and manners have changed remarkably.".

IN DOUBT. - (To the Editor.) Sir,—ls there, or is there not, a law for the rich or prominent, and another for the poor and lowly ,in this country? The "Secret Case" now occupying the attention of the Chief Justice is a subject of warm comment amongst Teadcvs of your paper, and instead of attending to our work we sit on the slip-rails and make dents.in tho Gaming Act by betting on tho personnel of -the principals in the very peculiar business now occupying the attention of his Honour tho Chief Justice. But this is no subject for joking, and whereas wo have recently spent our spare time in discussing the subject of "sheepfaking," ■ the latter lias touched the bedrock of oblivion before the all-engrossing subject of secrecy in'our higher Courts of laiv. I ' have ,spent some years in America, and I find that New Zealanders are apt to treat any reference to the law Courts of tho United States in a rather disparaging manner, but any citizen of the United States or of Canada, be he high or low, is raked fore and-aft should ho mix things with the laws of the country.- As citizens of New Zealand we have the right to know as to whether there is one law for us and another for the man over the fence.—l am, etc., - ' ' ZEKO. Gladstone, Wairarapa, March 21, 1911.