Payment offer to witness “may be contempt’

Press, 10 July 1979, Page 26

Payment offer to witness “may be contempt’

PA Wellington It may be contempt of court to offer a witness payment for his story, the Minister of Justice (Mr McLay) has told Parliament. The argument that it might be contempt of court would be particularly strong if the payment depended on the result of the case, he said. He was replying to Mr M. J. Minogue (Nat., Hamilton West) who had asked if any action was necesary to avoid the situation where a witness in a criminal trial stood to gain financially from a verdict of guilty against the accused.

The question arose in the recent trial of the former British Liberal Party leader, Mr Jeremy Thorpe, where prosecution witnesses were offered money by newspapers for their stories, in some cases more if Mr Thorpe was found guilty. Mr McLay said he and his department were watching closely to see what action the British authorities took in the Thorpe case and its relevance to New Zealand law.

“The present law in New Zealand affords some control over the problems raised,” he said. “The court has inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt and contempt includes any action which may have the effect of, or is intended to have the effect of, prejudicing a fair trial.

“The protection of witnesses is, of course, vital to the administration of justice and threatening, intimidating, or offering bribes to witnesses are obvious examples of contempt.

“There is no clear judicial precedent on the point but a number of authorities on the criminal law suggest that to offer a witness a fee for his story may well amount to contempt.

“This argument would be especially strong if the fee or the amount of the fee depended upon the case’s being determined in a particular way. “The point arose in England some years ago in connection with the notorious ‘Murders on the Moor’ case but the Attor-ney-General eventually decided not to bring proceedings as he was satisfied that the evidence of the witness concerned had in no way been affected.” Mr Minogue asked Mr McLay if he would have the law changed if it was inadequate to deal with witnesses offered payment. Mr McLay said this might have to be done if the law was not adequate. Mr F. D. O’Flynn (Lab., Island Bay) asked if the situation could be avoided if the names of accused persons were suppressed until they were convicted. Mr McLay said this would not alter the situation because if a person was convicted his name would eventually be made public.