COATS’ TRIAL

Hokitika Guardian, 19 November 1931, Page 7

COATS’ TRIAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL QUESTION OF PUBLICATION JUDGE’S OPINIONS WELLINGTON, Nov 16. “At the concision of the trial o! the prisoner 1 omitted to do something which I ought to have said Mr Justice Blair in the Supreme Court on Saturday when granting leave to reserve questions of law arising out of the Coats trial for consideration by the Court of Appeal. “1 made no reference to the care and skill displayed by Mr Treadwell and Mr James in their conduct of the defence of the prisoner. “The responsilViity of undertaking tile defence of a prisoner charged with a; capital offence constitutes a heavy burden on his counsel. It is the very gravest responsibility that can he undertaken by aqy counsel. When as in this case, the result i s adverse to the prisoner, jt. is proper for a judge if satisfied that the accused has been adequately defended to make such plain so that the public is made aware that the result though adverse to the prisoner was arrived at after a proper trial. His counsel, Messrs. Treadwell and James, presented his case will outsanding skill and ability, and everything that could have been done was done by them on bis behalf.

‘‘l have observed that the newspapers In their reports upon this case have for some reason abstained from naming the counsel engaged, and I shall be grateful, if fhey quote my remarks concerning the counse —and in the public interest such remarks should he published—if they will do so without paraphrase.

memorandum from chief JUSTICE. “In this connection T think 1 should say that during the hearin of the case I received a memorandur form the Chief Justice which I deferred making public because it appeared to me better that the quesion should not be touched upon during the hearing of a murder trial. At the Chief Justice’s request I now read this memorandum, with which, if I may say so, I respectfully concur.” The memorandum from the Chief Justice was as follows: “There is a point arising out of the reports of the Coats tri'l in l)oth the daily newspapers to which I consider it my duty to draw attention. Both newspapers- state that the ease for the Crown is being conducted by The Crown'Prosecutor and the 1 Assistant Crown Prosecutor,’ and both state that ‘two counsel have been briefed’ on behalf of the neoused. It the first place the reference to the. ‘Assistant Crown Prosecutor is wrong. There is no such official position known to the court. That, however, is a mere inaccuracy which may bo passed over. The point to which I draw attention is that the names of the counsel ape suppressed. “From time immemorial it has been the practice in all British countries in reporting court proceedings to give the names of counsel. There are very good renson s why that practice has obtained and should be obtained. Firstly the personnel of counsel appearing in any particular case is a matter of public interest which the public is entitled to know. Secondly, and much more important, it, i s fundamental in the adminstration of justice that the conduct of court proceedings and of every person engaged therein should be open to public criticism, and without the publication of the names of those taking part in the proceedings such criticism may be stifled or disdire'ted. “I feel very strongly that a departure from the practice to which l have referred is contrary to the public interest and to the best interest of the administration of justice, and for that reason I consider it my duty to speak, and to speak promptly. I cannot help thinking that the editors in directing or sanctioning the departure from a- recognised and oldestablished practice have failed to give due consideration to the reasons affecting the public .interest upon which that practic is based, and I hope that upon these reasons being now brought to their notice they will see that the practice is reverted to. T make this appeal to them in what T believe to be the best interests of justice.