DIVORCE COURT EVIDENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 27 September 1930, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT EVIDENCE

MR FRASER’S BILL. ji* & ■/ '' .A. I’. NECESSITY FOR. MEASURE. DOUBTED. CHRISTCHURCH, September 25. Ulfßhe.Bilk prohibiting the publication of the details of divorce cases in 'the few papers that do publish them is passed, then it would be a very good'-thing,” said Mrs Annie I. Finer, president of the National Council of ’Women when discussing yesterday the "Bill introduced by Mr Fraser into the ’Rcurie of Representatives for prohibthe publication of unsavoury details. ‘‘lße t’ast majority of papers,” add“do not publish them.” She said that she had recently received a..letter from one of the leading "ecojfidVnfst s in the world in whioli he .stated that lie was more and more impressed the further he went with the high standard of the New Zealand papers. “- 1; BARRISTER'S OPINION. (2l?f'Nrs’ :* j of a leading Clirist'bWrcKr.bari'ister was that there was ,litttp V need for such legislation, and he, 'personally, did not favour it. At the same time ( .lie said, it had to be remembered,, many people dreaded ..pubUca.tipn v ...and, to an extent, this dread acted as a deterrent against proceeding to Court. • “From the practioner’s point of view,” he said, “I would say that it is a great pity that people should bo restrained from seeking their rights in the court by reason of dread of publication. That applies, of course, not only to divorce, but to everything. We find " for instance that a great many people who have civil claims, and all 'sorts fif(claims do not like the public to "know' about their affairs. In these cases, if we can, we resort to arbitration, but you cannot resort to arbitradivorce cases. DREAD OF COURT. 4 TRThcre;. is. this point.!of' <view: 5 'divorce jurisdiction.deals.ay.ifh'the private .relationship ;of the parties-,,, and tlie public have an interest in it onlj so far as public morals are concerned, and, possibly with regard to the ehildr&iribAiilg- looked:after.'...'BUt the’ court -'wilE see- that the: children: 1 , are ltokeSd Walter T--. -A- -4 i'- :■ ROMs'-1 h-iir • ‘•‘Therefore, it coirieSDd-owW’-tS.‘this-: is it a greater evil to prevent the public knowing what goes on in the courts this Bill or to leave things as they are and find that a certain number of people have a dread of going to apuut? y, Personally;; I- would.-say that ptpple eicpre'sS a dread of"going to court,'they go there, all the. same. I have not come across many cases of people who have grounds for diyprcpy vvhcr Aid ;.not .• go and- get it, although especially in the caco of women, they rather dreaded the ordeal, SHOULD BE PUBLIC. . ~,,(1t .is,, of the ..greatest, importance,” divorce coil i t 'should be open to the oublic. It is only in very rare cases wfien publication of the evidence would be prejudicial to" public morals that ;tli£ ..will agree to a case being didard an camera. Personally, I DripA that), the) power to hear cases in eamhra snould be very rarely exercised. _ylt, is of. the greatest importance that the administration of justice should he public. If it is public, then why should not the newspapers carry it to the Whole of the public? Very few.people can get into a court room, and the newspapers must represent ‘the bulk who cannot. lii the main the Wapylard .of reporting, is. high,' and the discretion shown by the reporters is good. I do' not see- milch reason for altering the position. If there is any trouble,fit, is brought about by a very few fiiaptefs, whose • circulations seeius to depend '...0n lubricity'.” r.-