DIVORCE REPORT

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 266, 6 August 1931, Page 8

DIVORCE REPORT

Chief Justice Bans Publication PHOTOGRAPHS ALSO \ An order forbidding the publication of uny evidence arising out of a petition in divorce was made by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in the Supreme Court yesterday. The case in question was one in which Tom Asher was seeking the annulment of his marriage with Mata Asher, on the grounds of alleged adultery. His Honour said that the names of the parties could be published, but the evidence must not be reported, and the order included the prohibition against the publication of any photograph or sketch of parties or witnesses. “It well may be that no newspaper has the right to publish a photograph or sketch of any person, be he a litigant or a witness, who has to come to court on business in connection with the administration of justice,” said his Honour. "It may be that the publication of such without the consent of the persons Interested may be regarded as contempt of the court. I express no opinion on the matter because I prefer to reserve my opinion until the matter comes before the court in proper form, as some day it seems to me it must do.” The order which his Honour made came under section 55 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, and reads as follows:—

“The Court on the application of either the petitioner or the respondent , or at its discretion if it thinks it proper in the Interests of public morals, may hear and try any such suit or proceeding In Chambers; and may at all times in any suit or proceeding, whether heard and tried in Chambers or in open Court, make an order forbidding the publication of any report or account of- the evidence or other proceedings therein, either as to the whole or any portion thereof; and the breach of any such order or any colourable or attempted evasion thereof might be dealt with as contempt of Court.”

Commenting on this section in his publication. “Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, and Rules,” the late Sir William Sim says: “The power given by this section should not be exercised without strong reason to show that,a trial in Chambers is in the interests of public morals, and this is especially the case where the respondent has not been served and does not appear.”