THE COURTS AND THE PRESS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1396, 23 March 1912, Page 4

THE COURTS AND THE PRESS.

A judgment of much importance to newspapers and therefore to tho public which is served by newspapers was delivered a few days ago by the High Court sitting in Melbourne. The case was an appeal by the three leading daily papers of that city against convictions for contempt of Court. Those journals had published certain matter relating to a charge of murdering a woman named Mauy Davies, and it was alleged against them that this matter was likely to prejudice the minds of their readers against the respondent, T)n. Peacock, and endanger his right to a fair trial. The Chief Justice (Sin John Madden) had found the publishers of the Argus and tho Age, and tho publisher and tho editor of tho Herald guilty of contempt of Court. Each of the three publishers was fined £200, and the, editor of the Herald was fined £100 and sentenced to three days' imprisonment, to be suspended if he entered into a bond to lie of good behaviour for twelve months. Tho High Court, with Silt Samuel Giun-rnis (Chief Justice) and Mn. Justice Barton on the Bench, dismissed the appeals, but readjusted the penalties, reducing the- fine of the publisher of tho Aryux to £50, and that of the publisher of the Herald to £100. But the wider interest of tho case lies in Sin Samuel Gnimras's answer to'the question: "To what extent is a public journal warranted by law in publishing matter relating to a pending criminal charge!" He declined the attempt to formulate precisely tho limits within which such publication is lawful, but he laid down the following rule:

A publication which tends to prejudice or bias the public mind either on ono side or the. other, and so endanger a fair trial, is unlawful and contempt of Court. Tho whole matter published must be considered, and its tendency regarded as a whole.

The learned Judge further made it clear that this rule would not exclude the publication of the bare facts. "The public," he said, "are entitled to entertain a legitimate curiosity as to such matters as the violent or sudden death or disappearance of «, citizen, the breaking into a house, the theft of property, or any other crimes." It was, therefore, he went on to say, lawful to publish such facts as the finding of a body and its condition, the place in which it is found, the persons by whom it was fount), Ihe arrest of n person accused, and so on, but it anything further were published, such as alleged facts depending upon tir) testimony of some person which might, or might not be and might or might not be admissible in a Court of .lusfice, the lawfulness of tho publication would depend up-

on whether tin l publication was likely hi interfere with a fair trial (if the accusal person. He added that comment adverse to the accused would certainly not be admissible. It, is 'satisfactory to note that the Aniim, although it was found to have committed the Offence of contempt of Court, "willingly and cheerfully" accepted the principles laid down in the judgment on appeal. It is well, we, think, that the case was brought and that the appeal was taken, for (lie outcome, has been a charter of the just liberty of the press and a powerful restraint upon any future tendency to go beyond tin 1 proper limits of that liberty. It would bo deplorable indeed if the methodsof some American journals were to find their wav into Australasian journalism. We do not want ''trial by newspaper." Our public surely does not want articles like Unit of Hie, Ayr, as described by Sir J mix Madden, ■'contrived in *a way which carries the reader with it rhetorically" to ilie conclusion that a murder must have been committed by a certain specified person. But in satisfying, so far as may he, what the High Court called the "legitimate curiosity" of the public, the press really gives invaluable assistance to the administration of justice and makes the lives and properties of the citj- | zciis more secure. It puts the public on the alert so that thousands of individuals become, observant and inquisitive, with the very frequent result that clues are furnished that might have eluded the vigilance of the detectives, and evidence that would not otherwise have been beard of is brought forward. Another result of this publicity is that the police are stimulated by tbe_ knowledge that their efforts to bring the criminal to book are watched by the whole community. Public opinion is made up of many and various units, but its net weight and practical influence in such matters is always a force that operates for that sure and speedy justice which is everybody's interest. It is through tlw press that this force operates, and thouglv mistakes are sometimes made in newspaper offices, we do not doubt that, the An/us is correct in its assertion that "no one can point to a case in Victoria"—and this would be time of a far wider area—"in which the reports in the press have led to the conviction of an innocent person."