Unsavoury Law Reports.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18439, 21 July 1925, Page 8

Unsavoury Law Reports.

The fact that the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cave, will not guarantee facilities for the passage of the Judicial Proceedings Bill now before the Lords means probably that it will get no farther than its second reading. But it does not mean that the Government is not in sympathy with the objects of the Bill, or that it would not have the support of the public in an effort to "prevent publication of mephitic "details" from divorce or other judicial proceedings. The Bill is drastic but simple. It forbids publication from all judicial proceedings of " any indecent matter, or medical, "surgical, or physiological details. . . " the publication of which would be "calculated to injure public morals "or otherwise be to the public mis- " chief"; and it restricts publication of the details of any judicial proceedings for divorce, nullity or separation to (1) Tho names, addresses, and description of the patties and witnesses.

(2) The grounds on which tho proceedings are brought and resisted as set forth in tho petition and answer and particulars thereof.

(3) Submissions on any point of lawarising in thp course of the proceedings, and the decision of the Court thereon. Unfortunately the Bill has created panic among working journalists, not because they do not as a body approve of its purpose, but because they feel, with the proprietors, that it places far too heavy a responsibility on reporters and sub-editors. In view of the speed at which reports have to be handled this is probably true, but wc should be sorry to have it supposed that journalists object to being made responsible for what they write or pass, or that there is any demand by newspapers of the better class for liberty to publish what is offensive. The principle of the British Bill is perfectly sound: the liberty of the Press should remain, but if in the exercise of that liberty any newspaper or journalist commits an offence against decency, it should not be an excuse that what is .written or published is a report of a judicial proceeding. We have resisted, and will continue to resist, a censorship of newspapers or books or printed matter of any kind that is official, .mechanical and external. To give power to any public servant to say what is and what is not permissible in print is simply to obstruct and darken the path of liberty and truth. But whoever prints or circulates-for public consumption what offends public standards of decency must be held responsible, and must not be able to plead in excuse, that it is privileged.