CRITICISM STIFLED.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 264, 7 November 1929, Page 7

CRITICISM STIFLED.

WRITS AGAINST PAPERS. FEDERAL ELECTION TACTICS. AMENDMENT. OF LAW SOUGHT. The issue of writs against newspapers during an election campaign In - order to stifle legitimate criticism and their subsequent withdrawal formed the subject of representations by a deputation from the Country Press Conference to the Premier of New South Wales, the -Hon. T. R. Bavin, recently. The deputation consisted of Mr. S. R. Musgrave, past-president of the Country Press Association, and Mr. E. C. Sommerlad, general manager of the Country Press Co-operative Company of Australia, Ltd. Mr. Sommerlad said that It was not intended in any way to prejudice the right of anyone to a fair trial. There was a great necessity for some protection of litigants, who had a right to protection of the Court up to the time of the trial. They objected, however,- to the man who abused the process of the Court which was. supposed to exist for the purpose of securing justice, by invoking ite aid to perpetrate a grave injustice. The deputation represented a great body of newspapermen, nearly all of whom had been victims of that class of writ. " Travesty of Justice." Just prior to the recent Federal elections they had witnessed the spectacle of writs beiDg issued, the ultimate effect of which- was to hold up comment on a very vital issue. For some weeks picture theatres throughout the country had issued a tremendous amount of exceedingly bitter propaganda against certain people, and retaliatory measures were adopted. Those writs were issued when the election was getting "hot." The matter became, therefore, "subjudice," and further comment was' stopped. It was a scandal and a travesty of British justice that by the mere device of ..the issue of a writ public comment on an issue of vital importance should be prevented: One had only to realise -what woTild have happened if Mr. Theodore, who had as much cause as the picture proprietors, had issued a writ; if Mr. Hughes had a writ; or if. Mr. Bruce had issued a writ. The result would have been to have reduced the whole election to an abeurdity and leave it without an issue.

It wae contended by country newspaper proprietors that the stifling of comment on vital issues seriously interfered with the right of free speech, the heritage of centuries. Not jnore than 10 per cent of write of that kind reached the Court. In due time the writ was quietly withdrawn and.. that was the end of the chapter. Court proceedings should :be speeded up. to enable the cause of action to be explained before election day. The right of free comment might be given in regard to candidates for public offices irrespective/of any writs' that might be issued.

" Grave. Contempt." Continuing, he said that some .action should be taken to force' everybody into Court., In the case of the recent picture writs :he was reliably'infornied. that they had been withdrawn. They had served their purpose, and. the people: who had ieeued them preferred not to face the inquisition which, would undoubtedly follow their appearance in Court." Action such as that was scandalous. .

The Premier: Dp you consider the removalof \the right to withdraw a writ ? Mr. Sommerlad: I think action should be taken to force them to Court to substantiate their claims and statements. That, would probably reduce the num-i ber of writs by 80 per cent in one hit. If it is contempt of Court for a newspaper to comment on any subject of.a writ, it is grave contempt for a person to improperly invoke the Court to,issue the writ. There would be fewer writs if people who brought -them had to proceed or become- liable for .contempt. If they knew ' that .they ran the risk of being heavily, fined for contempt, the result would not in any. way prejudice the man who has a genuine case, but would undoubtedly have the effect of causing bogus men or mountebanks to think seriously before the Court was invoked.

Premier's Reply. , The Premier, in-reply, eaid that a question of immense public importance had been raised, which needed public discussion and consideration. It was filled with very great difficulties. There were two sets of considerations.:. One set pointed to the desirability: of restricting or controlling the right of peoplejtb issue writs. In an' election for a public office it was essential in the public interest that the public should know everything relevant about the fitness of that man to hold that office.. The Press was the means by which public opinion was formed, and facts were disseminated. It was essential that the Press should have the right to state those facts.

"In the last election," said Mr. Bavin, "a matter, of vital importance was mentioned by the Press—a matter that uore very definitely upon the iesue that the electors had to decide —but it was not allowed to be published simply because a person or a company concerned issued a writ, which, immediately after the election, I am informed, was withdrawn. The total result has been that the public has been deprived of knowing something which they ought to have known.