'The Press’ cleared of contempt charge

Press, 22 April 1977, Page 3

'The Press’ cleared of contempt charge

A charge of contempt of Court against the Christchurch Press Company was dismissed by Mr. N. L. Bradford, S.M., in the Magis-1 trate’s Court yesterday. “The Press” had pleaded 1 not guilty to the charge. The main ground for the ' dismissal, said the Magistrate, was that the information laid by the prosecution was bad in that the name of the company on the information did not constitute a ( legal entity. “It is a case where the wrong person has been charged. The Christchurch Press Company is not the j name of a legal person,” he said. “If the information had!, been laid against the Christchurch Press Company, Ltd. it would have been a ; different matter.” The Magistrate gave his decision after receiving written submissions from ' defence counsel (Mr P. D. ' Woolley) and the prosecuterj (Senior-sergeant W. Nicholl) i and, later, verbal submis-1 sions in chambers. I The case had been ad- i journed for a fortnight after j prosecution evidence was < heard. The Magistrate had i reserved his ruling on the ■

possibility of the police amending the information regarding the naming of both the complainant and defendant companies. Both companies were not described as “Limited” in the information laid by the police. The name of the com-! plainant firm was sup-j pressed in August by Jus-i tices of the Peace during thej taking of depositions in the; Magistrate’s Court, the evidence said. However, the next day, a report appeared in “The Press” using the name of the firm, as well as that of a witness from the firm. A police witness had told the Court at the earlier : hearing that the police reporter of “The Press,” who had been covering the case at the time, had told him he was not in Court when the! suppression order was made. The reporter had told him it was an innocent mistake. I “The police have submitted [that section 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act em-i powers the Court to amend! the name of the defendant,”, the Magistrate said. “Theyj submit; having conceded that; the minor offence form; should have shown ‘Christ-1

church Press Company, Ltd’, that this section of the act protects their case.”

Police submissions referred to a case where judgment had been given that, in such cases, section 204 applied unless there was a miscarriage of justice, the Magistrate ■said.

I “I cannot accept the arguiment. in this case,” he said. l“Tn my view, it is not a question of a miscarriage of justice. The Christchurch Press Company is not in any way a legal person or entity, therefore there is nothing before the Court which can be recognised in law.” Although the defect was a minor one, in his opinion it was not a defect that could be saved by section 204. “The essential point, in my view, is that the prosecution lhas endeavoured, by laying the information and proceeding with it. to direct the summons to what is, in law. a nonentity,” the Magistrate said.

“It is a duty of mine to en;sure that all summary proceedings before this court [are properly conducted. >whether certain matters are ■ brought up by counsel or I not.” he said.