CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 December 1917, Page 4

CONTEMPT OF COURT.

A NOT UNTIMELY REVIEW

One ot the leading maxims in our British system of jurisprudence is that a man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. 'This well-known principle has indeed been frequently referred to by our jurists and historians as one of the bulwarks of our liberty. Yet it seems to us, and it would certainly strike a casual visitor to our shores, especially in the light of recent events, that the principle we speak of in such glowing terms is in grave danger ofbecoming a mere empty phrase. Making every allowance for the fact that “ law grows,” the principles of law remain unchanged while the application of those principles only is to be changed with the changing circumstances of the times. We are led to make these observations by recent happenings in our midst. It is conceivable that circumstances arise which cause newspaper writers to insert ex- | pressions of opinion under strong mental excitement which upon cool reflection they themselves would afterwards unhesitatingly condemn. Other writers may be guilty of the same offence being moved thereto byquite differing considerations; for instance to obtain notoriety or for the mere love of gain. But whatever the motive may be, or indeed the absence of motive the results are the same. Any statements, as to a pending case, calculated to interfere with the fair trial of an accused person amounts in law to a contempt of Court. 'An interesting case on a charge

for contempt of Court was the case of The King v Davies. One Henrietta Hunter was arrested on a charge of abandoning an infant child at Morriston,, near Swansea. She was brought before the Justices at the Swansea Police Court on September sth and remanded from time to time until October nth, 1905, when a charge of attempted murder of the child having 111 the meantime been preferred against her, she was committed for trial to the uextGlamorganshire Assizes on the latter charge. On Sept sth, Sept Sth, Sept 9th and 12th there were published in ‘‘The South Wales Daily Post ” a newspaper having a wide circulation, certain paragraphs on “ Traffic in babies ” and “ The baby tanning sensation,” reflecting upon the character and antecedents of the accused and alleging that Henrietta Hunter's real name was Dora Johnston, under which name it was alleged she had more than once been convicted at Bristol. At the dates when the paragraphs were written the only charge against Henrietta Huntei was that of abandoning the child.

The delendaut in the case was the editor, printer and publisher of “ The South Wales Daily Post.” There can be no question that the statements were calculated to give an exceedingly unfavourable impression of the prisoner.

The first defence that was raised was that the proceedings to punish the accused were taken in the Court of King’s Bench Division and as the case against Henrietta Hunter was not a case in the High Court but was triable at the quarter sessions that therefore the proceed lings were in the wrong Court. But the Judges, among whom was Lord Alverstone, Chief Justice, in imI posing a fine of £IOO and costs, said that the King’s Bench Division had power to punish by attachment I any contempt of the inferior Courts such as our local Magistrate’s Court, our Warden’s Court, and our I Licensing Committees. I Without wishing to pose as a critic of the conduct of other newspapers we venture to suggest that a careful study of the subject of contempt of Court by some of our contemporaries whose treatment of a recent case on the West Coast, the name of which we refrain from mentioning, might well be made, and a moment's consideration, it seems to us, is sufficient to support such a proposition. The publication of glaring headlines in connection with a case which is still sub judice may mean a certain attractiveness to a paper and may ultimately bring grist to the mill, yet we cannot too strongly condemn the practice that has grown up.in New Zealand, of commenting on cases before trial, illustrations ot

which, were never more marked than in the recent local case to which we have just referred One of the reasons why the publication of articles like those to which we have referred is treated as a contempt of Courtis because their tendene}' and sometimes their object is to deprive the Court of the power of doing that, which is the end for' which it exists, namely, to administer justice duly, impartially, and with reference solely to the facts judicially brought before it. Their tendency is to reduce the Court, which has to try the case to impotence so far as the effectual elimination of prejudice and prepossession is concerned. It is difficult to conceive a better description of such conduct than is conveyed by the expression “ contempt of Court.” The principle which is the root of, and underlies the cases, in which persons have been punished for contempt of Court will be found to be, not so much for the purpose of protecting either the Court as a whole or the individual judges of the Court, but ior protecting the public, and especially those who are either voluntarily or by compulsion subject to its jurisdiction, from the mischief they will incur, if the authority of the Tribunal be undermined or impaired.

Judges and magistrates may well ignore, and very often let pass, occasions when the authority which they wield is not treated with the deference and respect which they are expected to receive, and, in many cases from our own knowledge such expressions, having been-used, have been allowed to pass unnoticed and we take it, this practice, will be allowed to continue, so long as no reference is made to the integrity of the presiding judges. As has been well said, in another case by Lord Justice Bowen : “ The object of the discipline enforced by the Court in case ot contempt of Court is not so much to affect the dignity ot the Court or the person ol the Judge but to prevent undue interference with the administration oi justice. In a case as far back as 1765, Chiet Justice Wilmot in dealing with a case said: “Attacks upon judges incite in the minds ot people a general dissatisfaction with all judicial determinations and whenever men’s allegiance to the laws is so fundamentally shaken it is a most fatal and dangerous obstruction of justice, and in my opinion calls out for a more rapid and immediate redress than any other obstruction whatsoever, not tor the sake of the judges as private individuals but because they are the channels by which the King’s justice is con to the people. To be impartial and be universally thought so are both absolutely necessary for giving justice that free, open and unimpaired cuirent which it has for many ages found all over this Kingdom.

It is an interesting fact, and it seems to be quite settled law, that it is no part of the duty oi the prosecution in these proceedings to prove that the contempt was contumelious A newspaper therefore may be equally liable in a case where the publication was merely an error of judgment: the sole test being whether the words complained of amounted to an interference with the preservation of the purity of the stream of justice.