THE SECRET CASE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1085, 25 March 1911, Page 6

THE SECRET CASE.

FURTHER PRESS OPINIONS. Our contemporaries in various parts of the country continue to comment on the secret case in AYellington, and tho same unanimity of opinion that has characterised tho discussion of this subject throughout" still prevails. Wo give the following and latest comments Lo hand: — "In Camera." "The circumstances connected with the 'secret caso' in the Supremo Court at Wellington," says tho Dnnedin "Star", in a sccoiul articlo on tho subject, "are gradually emerging from their sinister obscurity, and tho ultimate result is likely to be such a manifestation of public opinion as will prevent any recurrence of tho scandal. It >s necessary ■to distinguish between tho hearing of a case absolutely 'in camera' (in tho absence of tho press representatives and with a veto upon tho publication even of the names of tho parties) and tho semi-private hearing when tho public aro requested to withdraw from tho court and tile reporters aro merely directed to refrain from publishing tho evidence or (it may be) the names of witnesses. In tho latter circumstance, tho community obviously retain a considerable ■ incasuro of protection, seeing that- the newspaper editors know what is going on. , Kven as regards hearings 'in camera' we aro not prepared to' say that the legal power of tho Court is limited. Probably the limitation is moral rather than legal; in other words, a judgo is subject to the obligation of exercising his discretion in a rational and sagacious way. In a case tried eight years ago before Sir Francis Jcune, President of tho ' Probato and Divorce Division, it was argued by Sir Edward Clarke, Iv.C., that 'all. Courts have an inherent right to hear cases in camerii when they are of opinion that hearing them in that way is condueivo to tho full and proper administration of justico.' The President appeared to have been in some, doubt, but he ultimately endorsed Sir Edward Clarke's contention, and decidcd that 'wherever it is reasonably clear that justice cannot be' done unless the ease is heard in camera —it may be a patent case, or a matter in chancery relating to a ward of 'the Court, or for the very reason that tho investigation is practically impossible if the caso is heard in public—then tho Court, by .reason of its inherent jurisdiction, has power to order that it !)e heard in private.' Thus, the Court having full inherent jurisdiction, tho limitation of power, as v.c have said, is moral rather than legal. In tho Wellington case, wo take it, tho Chief Justice of New Zealand has not exceeded his actual

powers: the vital question is whether ha has exercised these powers with reasonable discretion and in conformity with the interests of justice. . . . Now,

accepting the guidance of these dicta of | Sir Francis Jeuno and Sir Ford North, we are confronted with the questions whether they can bo said.to lend any countenance to the recent action of tho Supremo. Court in "Wellington. The circumstances of tho Wellington case liavo not fully transpired, but wo . possess enough information to warrant us in saying that the onns of showing that the case belonged to the class which may fitly be hoard in camera rests upon tho Judge (or Judges) who issued the order of secrocy. Ponding a judicial explanation (which is clearly due), wo desire to speak tentatively; but there is (to say_the least) prima facie ground for supposing that tho case in question —a civil suit, and' issues of commercial morality—could not properly be included in the recogniscd exceptions to tho rule of publicity. Moreover, as The Dominion pointedly and pertinently observes: 'Should the persons concerned hold, public offices, or be engaged in business of any kind demanding public trust and confidence, then all tho more reason is there that the fullest publicity should bo given to' the proceedings so far as they a/feet the honour or honesty of those parties.' Wo shall leave tho matter there for the present, in prima facie form. It is the Court's turn to speak."

"A Muzzled Press." Tho Auckland "Observer" , says:; — _"0n.9 of tho prime principles of British justice is that each and every case must bo heard in public. Charles Dickens foresaw that some fifty years ago when Oliver Twist was brought up before Mr. Fang on a false charge of picking packets; At that timo oven tho Lower Court was closed to tho public. AVo have progressed since in conservative England. In that debased and much-decried country, even the Supremo Court is open to both press and ' public. But hero, in enlightened Mew Zealand, we find a Judge of tho Supremo Court on two occasions issuing a decree that tho press must neither bo present nor publish any account of tho proceedings. This, wo may assume, is democracy up to date. It savoure more of autocracy than anything else. From a strictly legal point of view, as wo said before, the Chief Justice may be quito within his rights; but tho press of tho Dominion is hardly likely to bow down to his dictum. In tho case under review, the only inference is that there is something to conceal. If there is not, why this desire to muzzle the press? Certain it is that, by inviting secrecy through such a medium, tho Chief Jnstico has only succeedcd in whetting the appetites of the press. And equally certain it is that the press will never rest satisfied until it learns, not only why tho Chief Justice placed his august taboo upon it, but also the particulars" of tho case over which such secrecy has been preserved. Democracy is one tiling: despotism "is another; and if the Chief Justice imagines that he is going to inaugurate a system of despotism over t-hc_ press, he may find before long that he is grievously mistaken."