Newspapers convicted on contempt charge

Press, 9 December 1976, Page 2

Newspapers convicted on contempt charge

“The Press” and the “Christchurch Star” have both been found guilty of breaking the law on suppression of names in their reporting of the case against John Gerald O’Brien, member of Parliament for Island 2, 0 2 Bay, last June. Both companies were fined $250 by Mr H. J. Evans, S.M.,'in a reserved decision in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. TV2, “The Press,” and the “Christchurch Star” were all charged with publishing reports which contained particulars likely to lead to the identification of Mr O’Brien when he was charged last June with indecent assault

j!on a male. The charge ragainst Mr O’Brien was subf sequently dismissed and Mr . O’Brien was discharged. . The charges against the 1 news media organisations • were brought under a secli tion of the Criminal Justice Act which was repealed six I weeks after Mr O’Brien was . charged. 1 The case against TV2.was dismissed. > The Magistrate said that I the early news item on TV2 relating to the court pro- . ceedings against Mr O’Brien ' i contained no particulars! i likely to lead to his) ■ identification, and was not; '■ linked .with a later news.

item describing the hospii talisation of a person hold ' ing “a senior Labour' Party office.” ' “It is not a report relating to Court proceedings. Admission to hospital ‘with ■ facial injuries’ does not. necessarily point in the direction of such person having been the active party in an indecent assault on another male,” the Magistrate said, when dismissing the charge. In the cases of both “The Press” and the “Christchurch Star,” natural connection was established between their respective reports of the court proceedings against a “Labour memiber of Parliament,” and a! subsequent report about the hospitalisation of Mr O’Brien, in which he was named. The common factor between both reports was the hospitalisation of a member of Parliament, which was clearly likely to lead the average reader to the conclusion that the defendant in the court proceedings was the same man whose name and description appeared in another part of the newsI papers as hospitalised. [ The Magistrate then went [on to criticise editorials in | both newspapers which, he i said, attempted to justify to themselves and to the public a clear breach of the namesuppression law. “ ‘The Press’ ought not, in my opinion, to have chosen that particular moment to challenge the existence of the section of the law and to argue the case for its reIpeal,” the Magistrate said.

He then quoted a section )f the editorial, which said: When a member of Parliament is facing a serious :harge, the community has a right to know that one of its fleeted representatives is involved and newspapers would be failing in their duty if they., did not make .his known.”

“If this is not actually setting oneself above the law; if this is not, in the circumstances, defying the law, it must come close to it,” the Magistrate said. “At the moment those words were being published and read, the law was saying something very different.” The Magistrate also criticised the “Christchurch Star” editorial which, he said, attempted to “downgrade” the law in question by calling it “controversial” and “this thoroughly bad piece of legislation. ’ “I think there should be on my part an acceptance, with due understanding if not. sympathy, of the aims and objects of the now-re-pealed provisions,” the Magistrate said.

“I am bound to say that I do not find such acceptance difficult. It seems to be that the scale and speed of today’s mass media render the individual far more vulnerable than in former times to allegations made against him or her, particularly if ! these are false, irresponsible, or malicious.”

The repealed provisions -represented an honest and not impracticable attempt to deal with at least part of this problem, the Magistrate said.