Decision on contempt motion reserved

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33941, 6 September 1975, Page 2

Decision on contempt motion reserved

(New Zealand Press Association/ WELLINGTON, September 5. Decision on a motion by the Attorney-General for an order committing Keith Francis Claude Hancox, news editor of Radio Windy, for contempt of court was reserved by Mr Justice Haslam in the Supreme Court today.

Mr I. 0. Upton appeared for the AttorneyGeneral. Hancox was represented by Mr G. S. Tuohy, with him Mr J. L. Marshall.

Outlining the background of the case, Mr Upton said that, at the trial in February last of Dr W. B. Sutch under the Official Secrets Act, the trial judge, Mr Justice Beattie, made an order prohibiting publication of anything that could lead to the

identification of the Security Intelligence Service officers who gave evidence at the trial. « The validity of that order was recently confirmed by the Court of Appeal. In a Radio Windy talkback programme on February 24, the name of one of the officers was published, and contempt proceedings against two men, Taylor and Edwards, were started. Hancox was involved in those proceedings inasmuch as he swore an affadavit used in them.. TEA MEETING The present proceedings involved the publication of the name of one of the officers by Hancox at a tea meeting organised by the Carterton Jaycees in March at which he was the guest speaker. It was not perhaps the most serious case of contempt but at the time, proceedings, which were given the maximum publicity, had already been taken against Taylor and Edwards. As a news editor, Hancox was presumably in a position of responsiblity, and supposed to use his judgment. He had only to think for a moment to realise that the name used in the Radio Windy programme was the correct name of the security officer concerned. Mr Upton said that it was conceded that the publication was at a private function but the effectiveness of the original order should not be whittled down by condoning breaches at private meetings. THIRD MOTION In reply, Mr Tuohy said that the present motion was the third to come before the court arising from the disclosure of an officer’s name. Mr justice Beattie had

fined Taylor $lOOO considering his contempt a deliberate affront to the court. In the case of Edwards, he found that, although he had repeated the name given by Taylor, and had been in a position as controller of the talkback show to prevent even Taylor’s publication by pressing a button, his action was of a minor nature.

The law relating to contempt was uncertain, and confused, in various areas, Mr Tuohy said. Counsel then made submissions on the law.

The exercise by the court of its inherent power to punish for contempt should be used sparingly, and should be reserved for cases of a serious nature. It should be exercised in cases where the action complained of was clearly likely to properly affect the administration of justice by the courts. IMPROMPTU QUESTION Mr Tuohy said that Mr Hancox was not present at the Sutch trial, and that he did not hear the EdwardsTaylor broadcast on February 24. Mr Hancox had learnt of the name mentioned by Mr Taylor and Dr Edwards on that day indirectly from his wife who. in turn, heard it from a neighbour.

“My client went to Carterton to talk to Jaycees about Cook Strait swimming.” He had had no intention of referring to the Security Intelligence Service or to the Sutch trial or any matters which now concerned the court.

"The subject of the security service and the question or suppression came up as the result of an impromptu question to my client, at the end of his talk, from one of the Jaycee members present.”