ALLEGED CONTEMPT

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 189, 7 May 1937, Page 2

ALLEGED CONTEMPT

Trial Not Prejudiced by Photograph VERDICT FOR NEWSPAPER A King's Bench Divisional Court composed of Justices Swift, Finlay, and Goddard discharged a rule nisi against Mr. Robert Lawson, editor of the “Empire News,” and Allied Newspa[>ers, Ltd., the publishers. The rule was for a writ of attachment for alleged contempt in the publication of a photograph of Frederick N'odder, charged before the Newark Justices with abducting Mona Tinsley. aged 10. Sir William Jowltt, K.C., for the “Empire News,” stated that the allegation was that the respondents had been guilty of contempt because they published above the name, Frederick Charles Nodder, in their newspaper on January 17 a photograph which was calculated to prejudice the fair trial of Nodder. The photograph adjoined letterpress stating that Mona Tinsley had disappeared and that Nodder, a motor driver, had been remanded in custody until the next day, when he would appear in Newark police court. Description Broadcast. A full description of the man who was alleged to have been seen in the company of the girl was published in newspapers, and broadcast by the 8.8. C. Mr. Justice Swift asked on what ground the rule nisi had been granted. Sir William read an affidavit by the Chief Constable of Newark stating that the photograph was a facsimile of one taken for police purposes and privately circulated among members of the police force. No authority was given for its publication in the “Empire News.” Mr. Justice Swift: That affidavit no doubt shows a breach of copyright that the police may have possessed in this photograph, but how does it claim to show that a fair trial has been interfered with? Sir William referred to an affidavit by Nodtier’s solicitor, who contended that it was clear from the start of the proceedings against Nodder that tiie question of identity was bound to arise. “I siibmit It Is very odd,” continued Mr William, “that it should be said that publication of this photograph is contempt. Such things as a birthmark on a cheek, or ‘Mizpah’ tattooed on the hand, or a goggle eye would be revealed by a description and not by a photograph. “I suppose that in years to come, when we have television sets, the police broadcasting the description of a wanted person, will broadcast his or her photograph.” Question of Identification. Mr, Nigel Robinson, for Nodder, objected to the contention that no question of identification arose. When the photograph was published, and even now. he said, it was not known what Nodder’s defence was.' Nodder’s plea was “Not guilty.” Mr. j ustice Goddard: The description of a man was broadcast, and it is now said to be a. crime; by the newspaper to publish the description. Mr. Justice Swift, giving judgment d’seharging the rule, with costs, said he had no hesitation in coming to that decision. “A full description of the man had been issued by the police,” he added. “I can see no difference between that description and the photograph, and in my view there is no ground whatever for this rule.” Justices Finlay and Goddard assented. Mr. Justice Goddard said that he regarded the case as “an abuse of Jurisdiction.” . He added that applications in alleged contempt of court cases were too often made for the purpose of getting costs. He hoped the time would come when such anpl’cations relating to criminal proceedings would not be made w’tliout the direction of the At-torney-General;