PRESS PUBLICITY OPPOSED.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 June 1923, Page 3

PRESS PUBLICITY OPPOSED.

[HV TELEGRAPH —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION'.] \ WELLINGTON. June 32. A deputation consisting of Archbishop O’Shea, Bishop Sprott, Rev Father E. Cullen and Rev IL Inglis, waited on tho .Minister oi .Justice to ask that the publication of tho details of divorce and other cases bearing on sexual matters should be forbidden. Ecterence was made by the Rev Mr Tnglis (’Presbyterian) to certain details published in connection with the Cooper case. He said that those associated with him maintained that, it was most undesirable that the prurient details of evidence should he made public in the way that had been done in the Cooper ease.

Bishop Sprott joined in the remarks of tho Rev Air Inglis. In the past, he said, the papers had been earelul in what they published, and the press had been on a high plane. Certain evidence must be published, they agreed, hut justice would net he prejudiced if the papers did not publish evidence regarding details of irregular sexual intercourse. The judgment in the Cooper ease would not have been difierent it the relations of the parties had been perfectly regular. At least tho speaker's own judgment win not aliened by what had been published in the way of undesirable details. _ In the Cooper ease the newspapers had got rather below their usual level, and he Imped that soiiiutiiiuj* would ho done to Si*e ih;\t there was no reeurreiico.

An hbishop O'Shea supported the remarks of the previous speakers, and trusted that something would he done to restrict the publication of details ol evidence which were considered to he undesirable.

In l-eplv to the deputation Sir Francis Bell said that he had no duty to protect, tile morals ol (he people. except through tin. l police. In a matte! of the kind under notice, there was a diliiciilty to intervene by authority. Sir [■’. JtelF said that, if he were to grant the deputation’s request. Unpractically meant the establishment of a, censorship of the newspapers, and he could ~,,, in, way in which that could he done legally and e(IW lively.

DIVORCE EVIDENCE, ETC. SIR FRANCIS BELL’S REPLY. WELLINGTON. June 13 Replying to I he deputation of clergymen who wailed on him requesting a stricter censorship oil newspaper reports of divorce and other sensational cases in the Courts, Sir Francis Bell said that frankly in his opinion the newspapers in reporting lie 1 oopci ease as they did had not transgressed the law. "| do not know." he said, "il there is any oilier remedy than to suggest the extent to which the publication ol such matter is, in the opinion of a great many, injurious and nut beneficial. You could ivprc-ent that to the press in any way you please hut to attempt to control the press in any way, otherwise than within !h.e limits of the law as regards indecency, imnmralitv and incidentally, sedition, is m,t I think, possible. \A bother Judges could he asked to extend their right to prohibit publication is au’other matter, hut I wish In make i( dear that no judge on the Bench would prohibit publication where all the evidence was absolutely relevaiil . It was revel.ml to Mrs Cooper's case that she submitted m certain condition and things."

Bishop Spent i : Is it permit sable In prevent it if you reterred it to the Judge’s power ol exclusion. Sir Francis Beil: They have very limited power. Bishop Sprott : Legislation "as brought into the House of Commons in regard la renm-ts of divorce eases. Sir Francis Beil: I have been looking ai I hat and I learn l hat the publii at ion of divorce matter Inis been limited, hut I snpnoM- a certain section want it. The whole thing is disgusting to decent people and it is no! mere disgusting to you than in me. I am quite willing to hear anything you bare to •-;■ v in ret abut i ■!.. Ret 11. 1 ugh- : I ■ ain tiei inn I e !a k - rn will you promise to consider ii. Sir Francis Bell: Not only that, hut if legislation has been passed in England having any hearing; oil il. 1 will certainly see that, il i~ submitted to Parliament Imre, hut the press is a very power t'ul engine tor political pttr-

S ENTENTE OF FIVE YEA lIS. AITKLAND. .lone L’L Al the Supreme Court. Arthur I’af-l-ick .McDonald was senleneed to five veals for indecent assault on a woman in a public street. .Justice Stringer remarked that tile accused, who was drunk, used brutal violence. Had it: not been for ihe appearance of two boys, serious conse:| lienees inigat have followed.