EDITOR'S SILENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 119, 22 May 1931, Page 13

EDITOR'S SILENCE

IT MAY BE CONTEMPT

BUT PRISON CAN BE RISKED

IF HANDS ARE CLEAN

Should a journalist disclose the source of information that he has published? It seems that if he is placed in the bos in a court of law and is questioned thereon, he bas in law no privilege to refuse to answer, and he is not entitled in law to any exemption from the penalties of refusing to answer. For refusing to answer ho may be committee! to prison for contempt of court. In practice, however, he seldom suffers that penalty; ami it is unlikely that a journalist in Nc«" Zealand will ever suffer it,, T™vMcd that there « no ground for bclicvh.R that the inioimation was obtained dishonourably or in bad faith. . ... , The above com-.lusious are indicated on reviewing "The Evening Post s own experience before Magistrates' Courts, Supreme Courts, and Ivoyal Commissions. A topical interest is given to the subject by a recent decision (cabled from London on Ist May) of the executive committee ot the Council of the Institute of Journalists. The committee had before it the case of Mr. J. A. Alexander, who was excluded from the Press gallery of the Commonwealth House of Representatives, Canberra, by order of the Speaker of the House, because, as representative of the Melbourne "Herald," he "refused to disclose the source of his information concerning the 'secret' cables that passed between the Prime Minister, Mr. J. H. Scullin, and the former Treasurer, Mr. J. A. Lyons, while the former was in England last year." Although the Speaker punished the journalist by excluding him from tho Press gallery, tho committee expressed the belief that such a elisclosure would have been a grave violation of recognised ethics of the journalistic profession.' ' NO LEGAL IMMUNITY. Twice "The Evening Post" lias refused to answer—once before a. Magistrate and tho Supreme Court in the 'eighties, and once by absenting from a Royal Commission in the 'nineties. In neither case was any penalty enforced. An examination of the circumstances will probably warrant the deduction that the reasons for not enforcing a legal penalty were moral leasons, and that acceptance of an editorial assurance that the information had been imparted to the newspaper in good faith was a factor influencing the action (or inaction) of Court or Commissioner. The circumstances of these refusals were retold in detail in the diamond jubilee number of "The Evening Post" . in 1925, by Mr. Fred Western, a former • sub-editor. Mr. Weston writes that Mr. B. T. Gillon as editor earned the thanks of fellow journalists, by his courageous resistance of efforts to "compel the disclosure of facts communicated to him, as an editor, in confidence. Though the law docs not recognise, in the case of a journalist, any such privilege as belongs to a medical man, a clergyman, or a lawyer, Mr. Gillon hold that a journalist was- bound in honour to take all risks in refusing to 'give away' his informants, as long its they had acted in good faith." COUNSEL DID NOT PRESS. Mr. Woston proceeds to refer to the 1885 case, when "a local society scandal led up to what was known as ■ the Hu'tt Tarring Case,' An aggravated assault was committed upon a man ' prominent in society at the moment. Another well-known local porsonage ■was arrested and charged with the offence, which became the sensation of the hour. It so happened that the accused gave a certain amount of information to Mr. Gillon, confidentially, in answer to inquiries which the lattei ■ made for his own editorial guidance. When the assault case came before Mr, Hi S. Wardell, S.M., Mr. Gillon was subpoenaed as a witness for the prosecution—it was a private case, not taken up by the Crown. On going into the box, he respectfully declined to divulge information tha': had been given to him in confidence, us a journalist. As a matter of principle in regard to his profession, said he, and a matter of personal honour as regards himself, he 'declined to be forced into the position of a private detective, spy, or informer.' Counsel for the prosecution, Mr. W. T. L. Travers, knew something of Mr. Gillon's determined character, and, recognising that his ' resolution was finn, he intimated that as the public would suffer through 'The Evening Post' being deprived of its editor, he would not ask for a committal for contempt.. Mr. Gillon was thereupon allowed to leavo tho box." LEGAL— AND MORAL. Before Mr. Justice Richmond in the (Supreme Court, Mr. Gillon, again called as a witness, took the saino stand, emphasising that his sense of journalistic trust included no clement of disrespect for tho Court. "The Judge made it clear that, the witness was legally wrong, adding, however, that whether ho was morally right lie would not say. For a few moments it seemed an open question whether tho resolute editor would not have to suffer imprisonment in defence of his prin- . cipJes. Again, however, Mr. Travers forbore to press the question, and the editor gained his point. In the course of the forty years that have since intervened, there has been no other instance of a New Zealand editor being asked to disclose information given to him in Hie course of journalistic inquiries. In the particular case mentioned it is only fair to state that the stand taken L.y Mr. Gillon had tho solid and practical backing of the proprietors of 'The Post,' who staunchly supported (lie principle at issue.'' The second case, in tho 'nineties, is more on a p;u- w ifh the recent case which resulted in the Commonwealth Speaker excluding Mr. Alexander from the Press Kiill./ry. L'.otli t -,iscs seemed to imply th»t an official document (or copy thereof) had p,- IS scd from an official to ;i .journalist. It y\;ik not suggested (lint the document published by "The livening Post" was in any ■way fabricated or spurious. Nor doc's it appear that any such suggestion lies ngaim't Mr. Alexander. IN HER MAJESTY'S NAME. In 18D'l "The .livening I'usL" caused a sensation by reporting that the .Commandant of the New Zealand Forces, Colonel Fox, hiid resigned, on account of differences with Air. Seddon, Premier. The letter eoiiliiiiiinj,' Colonel Fox's reasons for ivsi»;i>in;:'was set forth at sonic leiifith. Tin, <;.,vc:n'mien| set. up alloyal Coiiiiiii.«-siiui (Commissioner, Mr. C. O'llrn-ii .Smith) to discover how the letter hiid escnpi'd. The Commissioner subpoenaed Mr. K. T. Giiion (editor) and a reporter (JVI r . [■;, p. IJoben) to attend as witness,..-. Mi-. Gillon decided not to attend, and directed Mr. Hohen not to iitteml. In writing to that efie.et to th<: Commissioner, Mr. Gillon set out that lie intended no disrespect to tho Commission, "although I entertain ;, fooling the reverse of respect for those who are responsible for advising lli s Excellency the Governor to lS suo a Commission in Her Majesty's name, the purpose of wind", appears to l. v . to forte me. or some member or members of my staff, to commit a dishonourable action. 1 am weJ] assured that Uiu powers of' the

Acts of Parliament under which your Commission has been issued were never intended to be prostituted for such a purpose. As a journalist, I neither adopt myself, nor would I countenance on tho part of any member of my stall, any dishonourable means of obtaining information; but when any information is given mc in good faith I regard the confidence as absolutely sacred. When I use information so given mo I accept the full responsibility; and no amount of pressure—no threats of pains or penalties —will induce or compel me to violato the confidence I havo accepted, or to disclose tho source of my information. I hold this to be a point of journalistic honour from which no doparturo is possible." A EEAL RISK OF PEISON. In this memorable letter Mr. Gillon went on to recall that on a previous occasion he had maintained the same principle before. tho Supremo Court, and had "risked all the penalties which that tribunal could award for the technical offence of contempt." lie did not dispute the meaning of the law, and he knew that the risk of undergoing its penalties was a real risk. Both in ISBS and 1804, writes Mr. Weston, "Mr. Gillou fully expected to have to suffer for his temerity in defending what he considered a sound principle. In anticipation that ho would bo committed for contempt, he had made detailed arrangements for carrying on his editorial work from prison.'' But the Commissioner took no steps in that direction. In his report he stated, inter alia: "The evidence of Messrs. Humphries and Gibbons, and tho letter of Mr. Gillon to the Commissioner, is clearly to the effect that the 'Evening Post' did not obtain the information in any improper manner, and I have no reason to suppose that their statements are in any way contrary to fact. . . . Although Mr. Gillon or Mr. Hoben did not appear to give evidence in answer to my summons, I did not consider it right that they should be proceeded against." AN UNSOLVED MYSTERY. Commissioner O'Hara-Smith did suggest in his report a possible source from which "The Evening Post" may have derived information, but Mr. Gillon at once met that by publishing a statutory declaration that the theory was entirely groundless. Beyond that, "no light whatever (writes Mr. Weston) was thrown upon the source of the information. All the principals in the matter —Messrs. Gillon, Hoben, and O'Hara Smith, and Colonel Foi himself—have now passed away, and the mystery is still as deep as over. As a matter of fact, all members of the staff of that day carefully abstained from inquiring as to what information was possessed by Messrs. Gillon and Hoben, lest they should bo called upon to give evidence on the point. All that any of us ever cared to, know was tho assurance of the two chief actors that the information came to Mr. Hoben in a perfectly honourable -way. Mr. Gillon had had to be satisfied on this point before ho consented in the first instance to the publication of the article. J It is a curious coincidence that when Mr. O'Hara Smith died in Sydney some years later, Mr. Hoben, then resident | in the city, was ono of the New Zealandcrs who were accustomed to visit him in his final illness, and who attended his burial."