Courts’ Concession To Journalists Not A Right

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30155, 12 June 1963, Page 5

Courts’ Concession To Journalists Not A Right

Over the years journalists had grown into the habit of thinking that they were in a special position in regard to not disclosing their sources if called on by 'a court of law, said an English legal expert in Christchurch yesterday. Professor G. W. Keeton, head of the department of laws and professor of English law at the University of London, was talking to Canterbury University law students about some aspects of the .Vassall spy inquiry.

He told them the major problem was a constitutional one. “I saw that the journalistic profession had not appreciated it before the inquiry,” he said. “I think they have now, and I think they got a sharp surprise. “It is a feature of our system—one of its strengths and one of its weaknesses—that the courts have gone to considerable lengths in cases where journalists are involved. to avoid putting journalists in the witness box and then giving them the choice of disclosing their sources of information or going to gaol. “They have done the same for doctors and ministers — none of whom has any special privileges. Neither has a lawyer, except tor matters as between lawyer and client.

“As a result of that practice, journalists have gradually and slowly changed the emphasis from a concession to a right—and that can never be conceded. “If the courts were to allow by concessions certain persons to come forward and say that they felt it a duty to withhold information there would be an end to the effective search for truth. The Lord Chief Justice said the interests of the state must come first, and of course that is so. It is in the interest of truth.” Professor Keeton said the

Vassall inquiry was conducted under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, which gave the tribunal all the powers of the High Court, with the exception that it could not commit. The tribunal put a case to the court, and the court committed.

“So ‘ when it came to the test,” he said, “in a.n inquiiy where national security was one of the main elements, there could be no doubt as to what line the tribunal should take.

“I have never had any doubt about that. In, fact, I said so in a 8.8. C. talk before the inquiry, because of a newspaper statement to the contrary.” . About 60 students attended the lunch-hour address.