DIVORCE REPORTS

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 48, 25 August 1923, Page 9

DIVORCE REPORTS

PUBLICITY AND MORALS

SIR HENRY DUKE'S EVIDENCE

ECHOES OF THE RUSSELL CASE.

(»BOU OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

LONDON, 6th July

A Select Committee of the House of Commons has been appointed to report upon the Matrimonial Causes Bill, tlie object of which is '"to regulate the publication of reports of certain judicial proceedings in such a manner as to prevent injury to public morals."

Dr. Scott Lidgett, in giving evidence, said that all sorts of nauseous details appeared in the Sunday and evening papers particularly, which were objectionable. That applied to the publication ot evidence of photographs of the parties to the proceedings, and of descriptive details. Some sections of the Press seemed to cater for that kind of thing. He agreed that a certain measure of publicity was essential to justice and to the confidence of the public that justice was being done, always bearing in mind the fact that the Courts were open to the public. He would have a n objection to the hearing of such cases in | camera, but would give no opinion as to whether.the Judge's summing-up should be published or not. As far as he could gather, the Press would be very glad to have the assistance of the law in carrying out what he was sur 6 they would prefer. At present they were in a position of being afraid of what their rivals would publish. ■ The Bishop of London, answering the Chairman (Sir Evelyn Cecil), said he was very strongly in favour of a Bill of the kind and he had brought along as a specific instance a newspaper which in tour issues had twenty-four columns of reports of such cases. The atmosphere for boys and girls reading a lot of cheap trash like that was thoroughly bad. He referred to. the association with which he was connected, which had as its object the_ guarding of public morals, and ■8 mentioned the names of a large number of associations and societies which Had passed resolutions either in support fn £ vr" this matter °r condemning the publication of these reports He said those for whom he spoke were quite satisfied with the chairman's Bill, except that they would like to see it extended to cases other than divorce cases, where there were details that ought not to be published. THE PRESENT LAW. Sir Henry Duke (President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division) considered that, although under the present law the publication of indecent matter was forbidden, the law was not effective, and ho thought, in the iiltcresfs of morality something should be done Indecency, he said, was a relative term, bometimes it arose from the wanton exposure of facts without proper justification of indecent matter, but it-was a cumbrous process. In his view, such an oftence should be made summarily punishable in a Police Court before a Magistrate It would not be dignified to the ?, m 3 tl'l^' ex?ept-Ullder the existmg methods. The existenc<y O f an operative engine of punishment would in his i view, deter those responsible for the publication of newspapers. The printing ■and' publication of matters of physiological detail, which were sometimes dealt with in divorce Courts, should not be prohibited for professional use. As to reporters in the Law Courts, Sir Henry said that from his knowledge of the newspaper reporters they were men who were merely doing their work. He believed that the' reporting of such details as the Hill was intended to deal with was against their inclination. Asked whom he thought should 'be made responsible for the publication of such details, Sir Henry said that, means would have to be provided to prevent the person actually responsible from putting iip a whipping boy." He would regard lJ\- 33 •?<. Srave action to his duties if.he had to decide whether it was m the public interest that certain things should be published or not His view was that any law relating to the prohibition .of publication of indecent matter should extend to every Court, and not be confined to divorce cases The existing law was hot fully operative, but it was to a. very great extent inoperative. The publication of indecent matter in connection with law reports was treated as if it were a branch of the liberty of the Press,- instead of being an offence against the law. JUDICIAL DISCRETION. Reference was made to the Russell case. Sir Henry Duke said in that case there was a physiological problem of an extreme kind, about which, as I am told, men were a good deal perplexed, but it was a physiological problem which was necessarily discussed, though it was certainly not a matter on which there was any occasion whatever for publishing any physiological details." He greatly doubted whether it was in the public interest that nullity proceedings should be reportable in the manner in which they were. It would perhaps tend to the better administration of justice U there were a greater degree of judicial discretion. Asked by Mr, M'Curdy whether publication in the Russell case caused injury to public morality, Sir Henry said : You have to weigh r up so many considerations, and you have, to bear in' mind that there are many matters in question which, though they may not be patent, are latent. The mischief which would arise here does not arise from tho publication of offensive details. It arises from the existence of at" class in tho community which desires them to-be published. How you are to get at that ciass of peoplo I do not know."

Lord Apsley asked whether in some cases the divorce reports did not distort and misrepresent the true facts of the case, and show what really was a sordid matter in a different light, often making the villain of the piece into a hero.

Sir Henry Duke: "I have a strong view against all erotic publications. If there is a demand for. that sort of thing, it. is going to be satisfied. My difficulty ib in seeing how you are to deal with a large question of that kind by an artificial separation of one class of proceedings from the general body of matter in which you may have the same cause of complaint."