PUBLICITY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 228, 26 September 1934, Page 9

PUBLICITY.

COURT REPORTING.

REGULATING LEGISLATION

drastic amendments made.

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, Tuesday,

So drastic have been amendments made to the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill by the Statutes Revision Committee of the House of Representatives that this Government measure now provides only for ail extension of the existing law to prohibit the publication of photographs or cariactures of parties to judicial proceedings except with the written consent of the persons concerned or of the presiding magistrate or judge. Moreover, the onus of proving that authority was obtained will not rest on the defendant.

The main operative provisions -were rlcleted 'by the committee, which presented its report in trie House to-day, the chairman, Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Government, Waitomo) explaining that, in the opinion of the committee, the present law was adequate to control the publication of improper details. The clauses struck out sought to prohibit in relation to any judicial proceedings the publication of any indecent matter and indecent medical, surgical or physiological details, the publishing of which would be calculated to injure public morals, and to restrict reports of proceedings in divorce or under the Destitute Persons Act.

It had been proposed to prohibit, except with written authority of the presiding judge or magistrate in relation to any judicial proceedings for dissolution or nullity of marriage, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights and affiliation, maintenance, separation and guardianship orders, any particulars other than, the following: Names, addresses and descriptions of parties, witnesses and solicitors, a concise statement of charges, defences and countercharges in support or which evidence has been given, submissions on any point of law and Court decision and the summing up of the judge, the finding of the jury (if any), the judgment of the Court and the observations made by judge or magistrate in giving judgment. The debate oifthe committee's recommendations was interrupted by the tea adjournment. Chairman Explains. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Broadfoot, explained in presenting the report, that the bill was for the purpose of limiting the reporting of various types of judicial proceedings. He suggested that the whole of the questions involved in the bill were really questions of opinion as to whether publicity in the newspapers was desirable or not, and whether publicity should be full, or limited. The bill was on the lines of an Imperial Statute, the Judicial Reports (Regulation of Proceedings) Act. of 1926. He claimed that the law in New Zealand was not the same as the law in Britain when;that Act was passed, because the committee had found that for 30 years there had been discretionary power invested in New Zealand judges and magistrates when dealing with cases of the nature included in the English Act. In England prior to 1926 there was no power to hear cases in camera or to limit the evidence which should be published, except in special cases such as where secret processes were concerned. J.n his opinion, the Imperial Act had gone a little too far in limiting publication. Increase In Divorces. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central): What have been the injuries done to anybody? Mr. Broadfoot replied by quoting an extract from the "Law Times," that experience of the Act had borne out its original conclusion that severe restrictions oh the publication of details would render resort to the Divorce Court much more common. This authority quoted with approval the statement of a judge that publicity was a deterrent to social misconduct. The member reinforced this quotation by stating that the statistics in England showed that since 1926, when the Act was passed, there had been an increase of 45 per cent in the number of divorce cases. ilr. Fraser: Attributable to that Act? Mr. Broadfoot: Yes, in my opinion largely attributable to the Act. I feel that publicity is a great deterrent, and that privacy has undoubtedly facilitated taking cases to the Court which oftimes would be settled to the advantage of everyone. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Labour, Auckland Suburbs): What do you wi'sh to deter? Justice or the crime ? Mr. Sroadfoot declared that the discretion given to New Zealand judges and magistrate, and to the Press, had been operated in an excellent way. There might be in the future a Press which worild not exhibit the same degree of tact, but it would be time enough to deal with that when it arose, without f-hacWing the Press of to-day by the proposed legislation. Value of Publicity. The publicity of the Courts themselves was limited to those people of leisure, with morbid minds, who attended the proceedings, but he held that publicity should not stop wtli the Court, but that if there were a man or woman guilty of crimes against the social code, this should not only be known to the people who frequented the Court, but to tlie general public at large. And if a person were proved to be of bad character, he or she should be known by a photograph. Queensland in 1931 passed an Act similar to that of the English Statute, but repealed it the following year because it was found there was sufficient statutory authority to deal with undesirable publicity. The committee had had evidence that through publicity, honourable men and women falsely accused of charges which affected their reputation had found persons to come forward to establish their innocence. The committee, stated Mr. Broadfoot, recommended elimination of one of the clauses, so that the question of publication of reports would thus be left as at present to the discretion of the presiding officer or the Press. As for the clause dealing with publication of photographs,. it provided that if a photograph were I published, the onus of proving that the newspaper had authority for publication was thrown on the newspaper. "I say that this is an abuse of one of the basic principles of British law," declared Mr. Broadfoot. • "It is for the prosecuting side to carry the Onus of proving guilt.' i The committee, however, considered | that there was some reason for prevent-, ing the publication of photographs, | though personally he believed the pub- > licity by photograph was the modern | "etfiod of publicity and that there lion 1 ! be no more restriction on photo-

aplis than upon printed reports. To I 'at extent he disagreed with the bill. y.r. Broadfoot reiterated that Queens-

land in 1932 repealed the Act framed on the Britisli law, and had since seen no reason to alter its attitude. Such legislation, in his opinion, was for the benefit of a minority and would operate invariably to the detriment of the majority. Bill Supported. Mr. Mason declared that his experience went to show the necessity for no publicity in domestic cases, and that the arguments of the previous speaker proved ry that people had been deterred from claiming justice because of the liability of having their domestic troubles gloated over by readers of the newspapers. Those who were responsible for the welfare of young children shrank from having cases brought into Court if there was to be full publicity. He had seen too much of this sort of thing to become heroic over the rights of the Press. Was there anything more miserable and degrading than to gloat over the misfortunes, difficulties and tragedies of fellow-beings, especially in domestic cases, where helpless and innocent children were involved? The Prime Minister, Mr. Forbes: What papers do you refer to? Mr. Mason: I don't want to particularise. I have a very definite paper in mind and very definite cases. The whole thing is degrading and disgraceful. I don't want to see people kept away from the processes of justice by having to run the gauntlet of that sort of thing. I speak from what I have seen. "Splinters Only." "We have been subjected to quite an exceptional and extraordinary incident to-day," said Mr. Eraser. "The chairman of the committee has attacked the legislation which has been prepared by the Minister of Justice. There is something that requires an explanation. The majority of the committee are Government members, and the bill is a Government bill, and yet it is to go almost lock, stock and barrel. All we have left are a few splinters out of the barrel. I don't see how any Minister of the Crown can lie down to that sort of tiling. I don't see how, once having put his hand to the plough, he .can turn back or run away from the plough. The whole purpose of the bill was to protect the young people of the community, the most impressionable section, from filth. Can it be said that that is in the interests of the minority? Or is it in the interests of the majority?"

Mr. Fraser said that when certain newspapers adopted low standards of journalism, the whole of the Press was affected. They had seen accounts of divorce cases published which would have been far better left imprinted. What was there of interest to the healthy-minded person in the details of what had led up to a divorce ? "The speech of Mr. Broadfoot," said Mr. Fraser, "was a speech in favour of the liberty of the Press to purvey filth to the community." English Feeling. There was nothing in the bill aimed at hiding the names of people from the public or at closing the Courts," said Mr. Fraser. One of the leading editors in the Dominion, the late Mr. Mark Cohen, had been one of the strongest supporters of the proposals contained in the bill, and so interested had he been in the subject that he had corresponded with the newspaper proprietors of Great Britain. The replies he had received showed that there was no feeling against the bill in England, although the newspaper proprietors had objected to it at the start. Mr. Fraser said he could not understand the attack the committee had made on the bill, in view of the fact that some years ago a bill sponsored by him had been allowed to go through the House, although later defeated in the Legislative Council. He hoped, in spite of the committee's recommendation, that the bill would be allowed to proceed.

Mr. W. P. Endcan (Government, Parnell) said he was convinced that the great body of public opinion would come to the conclusion that the bill was absolutely unnecessary, as there was already ample provision under the Indecent Publications Act to deal with all the matters proposed to be dealt with. The report was "talked out."