THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, MAY 12, 1913. BRITISH COURTS OF JUSTICE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 12 May 1913, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, MAY 12, 1913. BRITISH COURTS OF JUSTICE.

A cable message received last week announced the decision of the Judicial Committee of the House of Loads, which is the highest tribunal in the Empire, that all the proceedings Ivn Courts of Law should be heard with open doors. ois decision, which is based upon, a sound principle of British justice, will have a far-rea-ch-ing and wholesome effect throughout the whole of the British Dominions. There has been a tendency in New Zealand i« late years to close the doors of the Court at the whim of the presiding Judge, /jritih the result that the privilege* of the Press and the public, to »ay nothing of those o# the pa-rtien ta tie case, have been unduly restricted. The Kennedy Macdonald case, which was heard ia Wellington some months a m*} afFoi;4?«l an illustration of this.

It may be right that a Judge should 1 have power to clear & Court of j tho.se who may bo attracted there out of morbid ouriosity, or of tne pru-rient-minded who may ba there to gloat over the details of a filthy case. As Lord. Justice Fletcher Moulton observed, however, whon the question came before the English Court of Appeal, it would nothing short ol tlie establishment of a judicial tyranny for tho Oourt to arrogate to itseH a power to withhold information from the public to wthich the public is entitled. The constitutional limits of British oOurts of justice were »o: forth by Lord Justice Moulton in these tirms: "Civil courts exist solely to enforce the rights or redress the wrongs of those who appeal to them, and for ino otber purpose. They liave apiple powers for so doing. They summon the defendant to come before than, they give both parties assistance in obtaining the necessary I evidence, tliey hear tho rival contentions, and finally th3y decree the appropriate relief, if any. But they cans do no more except that, when called upon to do so, they enforce the r.alief that they have granted. Beyond and besides this the Court acquires no power or jurisdiction over an individual by reason of his having become a litigant. He "remains in all othjir respects as free and as independent of interference from the Court as he was before the suit was instituted or as any ofchjr member of the public is who has never been a litigant.!' ..The fact that a person has, in the exercise of his right. ..sought, the assistance of the Court a, i .» plaintiff, or been compelled to submit to'its jurisdiction as defendant, gives it no authority to control his future a-ctions or to impose upon him its views as to propriety or duty. It is of ben a "duty which a man owjs to himself and to those about him to inform them fully of all that has passed in these inexpressibly painful cas-\s. It nxay be vital to him to clear away misconception in tho minds of those who are dear to him or whose good opinion he values, and to obtain from' them the sympathy and support that he needs. And I own that, not only as an individual, but as a momber of the judicial bench, I rebel against the suggestion that according to English law he may do this only so far as it may accord with tfre notions of some Judge who, a»s sucn, has no more authority to act towards him as a moral director in his behaviour in life aft 'r the suit is over tham has the man in the street. . . . '1 ba courts are

the guardians of the liberties of the public, and should be the bulwark against all encroachment on those liberties, from whatsoever side they ma\ com 3. It is their duty, therefore, to be vigilant. But they must be doubly vigilant against encroachments by the courts themselves'. In that case, it is their own action which they must bring into judgment, and it is against themselves that they protect the public. The magnitude of the danger is illustrated by the present case. This serious encroachment on personal liberty which is here proposed is not supported by a single decision. I cannot forbear adding that, in my opinion, nothing would b? more detrimental to the administration of justice in any country than to entrust the Judges with the power of covering the proceedings before them with the mantle of inviolate secrecy."