THE SECRET CASE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1086, 27 March 1911, Page 6

THE SECRET CASE.

MORE COMMENT, STRONG CONDEMNATION, Newspapers all over New Zealand arc itill commenting on tho action of tho Chief Justico in endeavouring to maintain secrecy in a certain Supreme Court action. In the extracts given below it will bo seen that all but ono of the papers quoted is heartily in accord with tho attitude taken up by The Dominion and endorsed by almost all tho papers that have expressed their views on tho subject. Very strong expressions are used in some of tho excerpts given below, and some notable reasoning is employed, • "SUPPRESSING THE FACTS." Tho Christchnrch "Star' first commented upon tho circumstances on Thursday, March 16, but ns tho paper is not on our exchange list, its article was overlooked by us. "We cannot conceive," said the "Star," "circumstances in which tho exclusion of tho press from ordinary Court proccediogs would be justified. In America money has been known to secure a special sitting of a Court at an unusual hour for the hearing of a divorce suit, tho reporters wero excluded, and the action was disposed of in. two or three minutes. That sort of thing is calculated to bring any Court into disrepute, but apparently any kind of irregularity is tolerated in the United. States' provided there is enough money available to shut the mouths oi people who might protest. Wβ mention this caso not to suggest that tho same thing is happening in New Zealand, because we know that the administration of justice is abovo suspicion of sordid corruption, but what we have to: remember is that irregularities always begin with tho suppression of facts in , tKe interests of morality. The newipiipors tught to ba trusted, nnd in this country tney , can be trusted to treat alt classes of news with discretion. The recognition of the-right OH the -press'to. be represented in Court is tho surest guarantee of the clean administration of jus- ; tice, and .we have before this recorded our 1 own : conviction that tho measures already adopted in New Zealand for the suppression of law. news constitute a grave . danger." ■ Returning to the subject in its next issue,, tho "Star" said:—"lf tho AVellington caso were an ordinary action to bo. heard ; in Chambers, the reporters would have .been permitted to state the bare outline of tho matters at issue, although the Judge would have been quite witliin his : /moral 'as well as legal-rights in directing that.the evidence should not be published. It is' tho departure from tiio regular New Zealand rule that differentiates tho caso froni others with which the critics desiro ' to conplo it.- The l'ress Association telegram mentioning tho case expressly stated that the caso had been the subject of a good deal of discussion,' and we may therefore presume that it is of direct public interest. Tho suggestion.is that the.prohibition has been issued because one or other of the parties occupies a public position of some prominence, but, however that may be, the fact remains that ; - a very unusual course has'been followed, : and not a word of explanation has been offered as to why it was followed. What we havs particularly to guard against in this country is the .possibility ■ of . special treatment being accorded in our ' Courts to a man who has money or in-' r fluence that would not be accorded to plain Bill Smith. AVo do not know what facts are at the'back of-tho Chief Justice's action, and we want to know. When a startling departure is made. from, the practice of the.Courts, the pub- . .lie are entitled to bo told why it has been made, and we think that tho newspapers that aro anxious to defend the ; Chief Justico in_ tho present instance 1 would be rendering a greater service to tho public by insisting on the publication r of-an-cxplanation.'i'or all wo know to tho contrary the case may be a perfectly simpla and highly uninteresting: one, but, .the. lows A'alno of-ffie proceedings does - not in the least affect tfie principle concerned."' . . , . " . ■: '. :- "COURTS IN CAMERA."Tho "Taranaki-Herald"' says: "AVb would ask whether there is any doubt that Sir Robert Stout is as keenly sensitive as other Judges to the necessity for' thn delicate use of the power ho possesses to forbid publication of Court proceedings. AVe should'think he. is, also'that he is fully-seized of tho very great responsibility he takes upon-himself when he forbids such publication. Believing this, we canriot criticise his decision in tho caso under notice in the absence of a> closer acquaintance with the circumstances. Nor can we .quite understand the position taken lip by some of the papers which .clamour for publicity, although there is room for just a suspicion that party political feclingl is not; altogether absent. ; If they know sufficient of what is going on behind the scenes to be convinced that it is improper for tho Chief Justice to order secrecy. to.be observed, they should have the courage to expose the impropriety in more definite terms, and risk a prose- ' cution- for contempt of Court, relying upon public opinion to support them: If their knowledge is limited to current ■'. gossin relating to the case, they should .withhold comment and censure until moro is It is qnito possible that flven those who criticise the Chief Justico now may, when tho facts are known, recognise that he has adopted a wise course, and regret their hastv criticism. There is this to 1)« remembered, that Tespect : for and confidence, in tho Supreme Court j depends noon respect for and confidence • in the Judges who preside over it, nnd it -. is important that nothing should be said .or written lightly whicli is calculated to weaken that respect and confidence. New Zealand has been -fortunate in having her Courts presided over by Judges of whoso absolute honesty, impartiality, and independence there has been n n suspicion, and that is a reputation which we hopo will always be. upheld,- for it. would be a disastrous thing if tho peonlo lost confidence in their probity and justness 1 ." "A SECRET ACTION." "The race to which be belong fought long and bitterly" (says tho New I'lymouth "Daily News") "for tho publicity that, the Chief Justice of New Zealand has denied. AVo know, of course, that, although no statute law exists giving power to Judges to hold a Star Chamber sitting, thoii- discretionary powers havo been very wide, and their actions in prohibiting publication of specific particulars condoned, because of the trust the people have placed in their hands . AVhatever aro the facts of the cast, and ; whoever the parties to it may bo protected by the action of tho Judge, the public o£ New Zcalnud is entitled to feel alarmed. Tho Judge has shown that there .is no such thing as 'tho sovereign : people,' and that, although he is a servant of. the people, he owes no.duty to them and can conduct his business in secret and in what mariner ho likes. Having decided that in one ens© ho may wipo out every chance of publicity by a single dictatorial action, he, and presumably his brother Judges, may set up Star Chambers on any future occasion. If the parties ..to the.suit secretly heard by.tha Chief ''Justice of New Zealand are protected by his Honour, there is no reason why future litigants shall not be protected in a like manner. In prohibiting the presence of newspaper men, the Chief Justice necessarily held that the newspaper men would have found something lo report had they obtained entrance. Jn closing the doors on them ho showed distrust of . tho press, which is the safeguard of tlie public and of tho Chief jnstice. In denying pressmen the right to be present, the Chief Justice assumed that any request he might havo then nnidq for nonpublication of matters that might have had a bad. effect on tho public would have been taken no notice of. AVe are, therefore, entitled to conclude that the case was of deep public interest, that the reason for forbidding publication of any facie or names was not by way of protecting the public, and that if tho parties to ono suit are to be protected, the parties to future suits should be given tho right to a secrot hearing, too. Wo do not know anything about the case, or the names, of tho parties, but we do know, that a trusted Judge has established a vicious precedent. Such a proceeding might be very complimentary to. tho influence of litigants in . n caso or to people whose names might ultimately be in the public eye as a re- . eult, but SjrEohcrt Stout's action is. not

only a stab at the 'freedom of the press,' but a blow at the '-sovereign people,' who can no longer bo sovereigu if their servants rule." , , ."JUSTICE OR LAW." . Tho "Pelorus Guardian" thinks that if the object of the Chief Justico, was to shield tho parties from the prying eyes and wagging tongues of the public it has failed deplorably. "For at tne first suggestion or tho suppression of facts many thousands of tongues were busy retailing, and double as many ears-absorbing,'tit-bits inoro or less accurate, but all suggestive, in connection with' tho supposed scandal. The leading nowspnpers are clamouring for a removal of the prohibition to publish details, and for the transfer of the case to open court. To these demands the Chief Justice turns a deaf ear—and that is tho position to-day. Whether tho trustee has been guilty of fraud.or whether it is merely a friendly suit to adjust accounts is a mere incidental in the controversy. In camera trials breed suspicion, in spite of the traditional incorruptibility of our judges; and when to this is added the muzzling of the press ono gets as near to open revolution, as the Britisher is capable of getting. For it is then but a step to the gagging of tho public, a proceeding that spells social upheaval. This action of the Chief Justice appears to be the culmination of an ever-widening system of private trials, complaints of which have recently been frequent. Proceedings in divorce are now rarely allowed to be published, a blessing that the guilty parties are devoutly thankful for, but the logic of which is extremely doubtful. New Zealand stands practically alone in methods of legal iprocedure in certain enses, and if the ! Chief Justice's latest jaunt into legal bypaths is to be regarded as a precedent ior similar excursions litigants will in future be very doubtful about taking cases to a court that is not free to all. Any court proceedings that affect a person's probity are of vital interest to tho public, aud that interest is intensified when tho individual happens to be a public servant or a person accountable to the public 'for his public actions. And while it is .scarcely conceivable that tho Chief Justice of the Dominion would.act as he has doae,; and is doing, without perfectly good reasons, it is equally difficult to understand what possible conditions could arise in an application to the courts that would create so extraordinary a spectacle as the absolute prohibition of ■any. details, of a most important matter. Meantime that very vigorous and capable paper, The Domixiox, is fearlessly and incessantly hammering at- the authorities in an endeavour to probe the mystery." • "THE STAR CHAMBER," "The peoplo give tho Supreme Court extraordinary powers," soys tno "TemuKa Leader," "and.no one in his sane senses would wish to take them away from it. But if the people givo tho Supremo Court extraordinary powers, they have a right to receive justice in return tor it. According to modern' ideas, justice can only be administered in open Court, to whien the public and press "are admitted, .and it •is to tt.o exclusion of this essential part of the proceedings of tho Supreme Court in ASellington. that exception has .been taken. There , are, of''course, instances where it is desirable to hear cases with closed doors. They are cases in which indecencies which are calculated to corrupt public morals are introduced; but in the AVellington case, so far as we can find out, nothing of this kind can be set up as an excuse. It is alleged-to. be a civil suit, in which trust moneys are involved, an,d.consepuehtly fit subject for. publicity. Beyond this we know nothing of the caso further than the fact that, it-has been tried by tho Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, than whom thcro aro few, if any, for whom we havo greater esteem, or in whom wo havo greater confidence. How it is, therefore, that ho. has allowed tho re-establishment of Star Chamber proceedings in a Court presided over by him passech understanding.. .'■ .-' .No doubt it has the power to close its'doors', but public opinion has lonfj since decided that the liberty of the subject cannot!, bo safeguarded except in.the light of day in open Court. AVe are therefore very much astonished ..at the proceedings'of'the Court df vyfe'llington. Wo"'know nbttrrjig of the merits or demerits of the case|,.andcare less. What.we object to is tlj?. system, and we are glad to find-th.it-it is nieeting with universal disapproval, nnd 'likely to be yet reviewed by the Court of 'Appeal."