Publisher, editor fined $500

Press, 3 December 1985, Page 12

Publisher, editor fined $500

The publisher, David lan Henderson, and the editor, Paul Noel Verdon, of Christchurch’s short-lived free weekly newspaper, the “Sunday Miracle,” have each been fined $5OO and ordered to pay costs of $250 each towards the costs of the Solicitor-General, Mr P. D. Neazor, on a charge of contempt of Court, by Mr Justice Cook in a reserved judgment given in the High Court.

The defended charge was heard on November 26 when Messrs Neazor, Q.C., and D. J. L. Saunders appeared for the Crown and Mr T. G. Goddard, of Wellington, for Messrs Henderson and Verdon.

On September 30, 1984, in a column headed “Street Beat” in the “Miracle” was published an item which read: “Popular Catholic lawyer, Bill McMenamin, must have breathed a grateful and sober sigh of relief the other day when fellow Catholic Judge Noel Bradford, tossed out his drunken driving charge.” This was the item the Crown said “scandalised the Court.” Mr Justice Cook said that the column was supplied by a local reporter working for the “Sunday Miracle” on a freelance basis. He was not before the Court.

The Solicitor-General applied to the Court for orders that Messrs Henderson and Verdon be either committed to prison or fined for contempt of court. It was argued by the Crown that the item reflected upon the integrity, propriety and impartiality of a District Court Judge; that it lowered the authority of the District Court and the Judge; that it detracted from the authority and influence of the decisions of the District Court and the Judge, and that it embarrassed and distracted the District Court and the Judge in arriving at decisions. During September last year on two occasions Judge Bradford dismissed a num-

ber of traffic charges against several defendants because they could not be heard in the time allotted.

Among those were four against William Hugh McMenamin, none of which related to drunken driving. The Solicitor-General submitted that the words published constituted a contempt of court within the ancient expression of “scandalising” the Court. The intended inference in the item was obvious. It had implied that Mr McMenamin had received preferential treatment because he was a lawyer and both he and Judge Bradford were Catholics. It was an insinuation that the Judge had not acted with impartiality. As such, it was a gross insult to the Judge, but the question was .whether it struck at the administration of justice by tending to undermine or impair the authority of the Court. There was no suggestion by Messrs Henderson and Verdon that there was any justification for such an allegation nor could the paragraph be described as fair comment.

“As to the effect on readers, I consider that certainly the majority who read the column would grasp the insinuation contained in the paragraph. No doubt a number would dismiss it as absurd, but in this age when so many are ready to challenge tradition and the established order and view authority with disrespect if not distrust, others would be prepared to accept it as plausible with a consequent loss of faith in the administration of justice,” Mr Justice Cook said.

His Honour held that there was no merit in the defence argument that Judge Bradford, who had been held by the High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal, to have acted without jurisdiction when he dismissed the traffic informations, was in consequence not at the time

acting in a judicial capacity. Even if the orders were made without jurisdiction at the time the Judge was presiding over a sitting of the District Court and acting in his judicial capacity. In the eyes of any beholder, what he did was done as a Judge, a fact which was accepted by the reporter who wrote the paragraph. Dealing with penalty, Mr Justice Cook said that it was not a case which warranted imprisonment. The Solicitor-General had submitted that it warranted more than a nominal fine. There could be much more serious examples of contempt but the paragraph did contain the insinuation of partiality and, had there been trust in it, what would have been gross partiality. He took into account that both Messrs Henderson and Verdon had made full apologies which had been read to the Court.

Mr Verdon had to bear equal responsibility. He had had the opportunity, even if not taken, to check what the reporter had written, said Mr Justice Cook.