Paper On Contempt Charge

Press, Volume C, Issue 29524, 27 May 1961, Page 11

Paper On Contempt Charge

(A'.Z Press Association—Copyright) SYDNEY, May 26. The full Supreme Court late this afternoon reserved its decision on an application by the New South Wales Attorney-General that the Court should deal with Mirror Newspapers, Ltd., and the executive editor of the “Daily Mirror,” Mr lan Smith, for contempt of Court. The case arose from publication in the “Daily Mirror” on October 11 of a photograph of Stephen Leslie Bradley.

Bradley last Monday lost an appeal against his conviction for the murder of an 8-year-old Bondi schoolboy, Graeme Thorne, on July 7, 1960.

The Crown alleged the publication, made after Bradley’s arrest at Colombo, was calculated to prejudice and embarrass the proper presentation of the case. Mr H. Snelling. Q.C., appearing foe the State Attor-ney-General, submitted that it was a well-established legal principle that a newspaper should not publish a photograph of an accused if identity was likely to be an issue at a trial The principle, he said, was ; well known to the com- , munity, and to the proi prietors and editors of news- '• papers, and had been gen- , erally observed in New ! South Wales for a great i number of years. Mr Snelling said identifi-

cation was an important matter at the time of the publication. He said the judge at Bradley’s trial, last March, bad directed the jury to disregard castain evidence because the picture had been published. In an affidavit, the “Mirror's” editor, lan Francis Patrick Smith, said police had co-operated with an artist to sketch a likeness of a man whom they wanted to interview. The sketch had been published on September 27. Smith said he bad had no intention of interfering with identification or a fair trial, or of affecting in any way the conduct or outcome of the case. He said that in 30 years of journalism, he had never before been involved in contempt proceedings. If the publication was a contempt, he desired to express his sincere regret and offered his apologies to the Court, he added.

The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Evatt, said apparently there had been co-operation between the police and the artist on the sketch. He said the co-operation appeared to have been in the interests of justice, to find the man police wanted. This seemed important to the newspaper’s case.

Two recent English cases showed courts dealt quite sternly with newspapers which had not deliberately, but in error, published material which interfered with the course of justice, Mr Snelling said. Both cases underlined and emphasised the duties and responsibilities of proprietors and editors of newspapers, he added. To questions from the Bench, Mr Snelling said that up to the time of an arrest a great deal of latitude was allowed. After that, the right of the accused—and of the Crown—to have a fair trial, came into play. Newspapers then had a very grave responsibility, be said. Mr Snelling said no complaint was made about the “Daily Mirror’s” publication on September 27 of a sketch of a man similar to the man seen near the Thorne home on July 7. The principles of the publication of the photograph of an accused person were not only well-established but well known. It was highlydangerous to publish the photograph of a person who was arrested.

Summing-up the Crown case, Mr Snelling said: “We submit that there is a clear and obvious contempt proved beyond any reasonable doubt.”

He said that it was no excuse at all that, 14 days before the photograph was published and the accused man arrested, a sketch of a wanted man was published in the newspaper with the co-opera-tion of police officers. The photograph was published deliberately—it was not an inadvertent or accidental publication affected through inexperience, he said. Mr Snelling said that as a result of publication of the photograph, an identification parade was rendered completely worthless, and the Crown was forced to rely on the less effective way of identification by witnesses selecting a photograph from a group of photographs. Smith should have been aware, as an experienced journalist, that an identification parade would have to be held when Bradley was returned to Sydney. He said the fact that Smith said it was his decision to publish the photograph did not in any way exculpate the newspaper proprietor from contempt of court. Proprietors were responsible for the actions of their employees. “The Crown finally submits that this publication requires a salutary reminder to the newspaper and its editor that they cannot with impunity embarrass the efforts of the courts to give justice to all,” Mr Snelling said.