Evening Post. SATURDAY, MAY 23, 1931. CONTEMPT OF COURT

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 120, 23 May 1931, Page 12

Evening Post. SATURDAY, MAY 23, 1931. CONTEMPT OF COURT

From the mere protection of the safety and the dignity of the King and his officers the power of commitment for contempt of Court has been developed by the Courts themselves with but little help from the Legislature into a powerful and hitherto indefensible guarantee of what is just as essential a safeguard of democracy as free speech, free newspapers, and free elections—the pure and efficient administration of justice. Even as a great divine of the 16th century declared that of Law there can be no less acknow. lodged than that her seat is the bosom of God, her voice the harmony of the world so did the great lawyers of the good old days regard this power of commitment for contempt as so essential to the administration of the law that they assumed it to be "ipso facto" inherent in the Courts from.the beginning and were not afraid to say so in their opinions . and their judgments. In the famous 18th century case of Rex v. Ahnon, Mr. Justice Wilmot said: • Tho Power which the Courts in Westminster Hall have of vindicating their own authority, is coeval with their first foundation and institution; it is a necessary inedent to every Court of Justee, whether of record or not, to fine and imprison for a. contempt to the Court, acted in tho face of it. And the issuing of attachments by the Supreme Courts of Justice in Westminster Hall For contempts out of the Court, stands upon the same immemorial usage as supports the whole Fabric of the Common Law; it is as much the "lex torrae" and within the exceptions of Magna Charta as tho issuing of any other legal process whatever. To the more sceptical mind and the more exact learning of the modern jurist the judgments in that great case may seem to depend rather on a somewhat turbid (? turgid) rhetoric than on ratiocination or the examination of authorities. And it is highly probable that neither by ratiocination nor hy examination of the authorities would he be able to justify Hooker's beautiful attribution of the home of law to "the bosom of God." But the uncritical layman rejoices that the more elevated style of an earlier day found its way even into the judgments of the Courts, and he would certainly find contemporary law books less unreadable if modern authorities ever indulged in similar liberties. The essential point is, however, that the eloquence which jars upon the nerves of the Dryasdust of to-day does not invalidate the ancient judgments which it adorns. It is, moreover, possible to quote a slill earlier judgment, a passage in which states that the aspect of the law of contempt that is of the greatest practical importance to-day, and which does so in terms-:that the most up-to-date reviser could not improve. In a case in which oiir London namesake, and possibly the first bearer of the name—the "St. James's Evening Post," was concerned in 1742, Lord Chancellor Hardwicke said: There may be also a contempt of this Court in prejudicing mankind against persons beforo the cause is heard. . . There cannot be anything of greater consequence than to keep the streams of justice clear and pure, that parties may proceed with safety both to themselves and their characters., It is but very rarely in these days that the power in question is invoked for the primitive purpose of protecting' a Judge from physical violence or of punishing the attempt. Such a case came before Vice-Chancellor iVl!alins in 1877 and was decided in a manner that did him great credit. As he was leaving the Bench in his Court in Lincoln's Inn, somebody threw an egg at him. The egg appears to have missed its mark, but the Judge retorted with a double bull'seye. Referring to the fact that his colleague, Vice-Chancellor Bacon, was sitting in an adjoining Court, he remarked that the present must have been intended for his brother Bacon, and committed his assailant to prison forthwith. The prisoner refused to purge his contempt, hut after he had remained in custody for five months an order was made that he should be discharged on his being placed on board a ship lhat was bound for New York. It was appropriate that the man who in the "Egg Case" had made this singular contribution to the annals of British justice should Itotve been an American citizen. He was returning to a land where contempt of Court counts for little—so little that the disuse of the power Lo restrain it is one of die fundamental

causes of an administration of the criminal law. which is a disgrace to a civilised country.

The terrible example of ihc United Stales ahotilcl stimulalc Now Zealand's gralitudt: to her Judges for the vigilance with which in the interests, not of their own dignity. Lnl of llio liberties and privileges of the people, they have exercised this great power for keeping, in Lord Hardwieke's phrase, 'ihc streams ol" justice clear and pure." Five or six years ago the printer and editor of the Christchureh "'Sun" were brought before the Court of Appeal by the AttorneyGeneral on a motion to commit them for contempt of Court and prejudicing the due administration of justice by the publiealion of a paragraph headed "Smiles for Mouat" during the trial of Mouat for murder. The smiles were those of a lady witness for the defence, and they were more fully described in the paragraph as follows:—

As she spoke of her knowledge* of the Mounts her gaze alternated .between tho Crown Prosecutor and tho dock; from under her brown hat she spared many quick smiles for Mouat. It does not appear to have been denied by the Crown—for the proceedings, though in Mouat interests, were not taken by him but by the Crown— that the smiles were many and quick and aimed at Mouat, any more than that the hat was brown. But*on the grounds that the witness was of the utmost importance to the defence, that the writer was conveying his own opinion as well as the facts, and that the effect was likely to prejudice the prisoner, the defendants were adjudged guilty of contempt by a bare majority of the five Judges. The combination of tenderness and subtlety with which the result was arrived at was not without its amusing side, but the arguments of all the five showed that on the great question of principle involved the best'traditions of British justice are safe in the hands of the New Zealand Bench. But the news which has reached us from Liverpool during the last few days suggests a doubt whether those traditions are equally safe in the land of their origin. The murder of which William Wallace was convicted is described as "a perfect crime" on account apparently of the thoroughness with which all traces had been obliterated, but as a scientific lecturer, chess player, and violinist Wallace himself was far from a perfect criminal. The verdict accordingly created intense excitement in Liverpool, one effect of which is described as- follows: — In the cathedral the vice-dean, Canon Dwelly, offered intercessory prayers on behalf of "all awaiting judgment," and prayed "that His Majesty's Judges of tho Appeal Court may be guided to a true judgment, so that tho confidence of the people of this country in the fair dealings of their fellow-men may berestored." From the standpoint of religion it seems highly undesirable that a prayer to which many devout members of the. congregation would like to move—or to pray—^an amendment should be offered up in the name of them all. From the standpoint of law neither a minister of religion nor his congregation can have better right to interfere with the administration of justice than a newspaper or a public meeting. The point, which seems too obvious to require argument, was actually decided in 1876 at the expense of a Congregational minister who had issued a circular in the following terms:— CHANCERY SUIT. .Congregational Church, Herno Bay. On Sunday morning, 25th June, the Rev. Thomas Blandford will preach a sermon with special reference to the trial in which the town is so deeply interested and which is fixed for the 27th and following days. Divine Service to commonee at 11 o'clock. The sermon was not delivered, for an injunction was issued to forbid it as calculated to prejudice the trial, and one has only to substitute the words "Canon D;vrclly will offer Intercessory prayers, etc." for those relating to the Rev. Mr. Blandford and his sermon in order to make the circular, and presumably the judgment, fit the Liverpool case. It may, no doubt, be assumed that at Liverpool no ' notice was given of the Canon's intention—an omission which' prevented the remedy by injunction while increasing the objection from the standpoint of the dissenting minority—but after the offence had been committed why did not the Crown take exactly the same proceedings against the Canon that it would have taken against the "Daily Mail" if it had interfered in the same way?

It is still possible for the Crown to repair the omission, and it now has the opportunity of shooting at higher game. The Bishop of Liverpool has made himself an accessory, if not the principal, when he declares that he is very glad that the appeal had been allowed, as he had never been satisfied that the evidence justified the jury's verdict, hence the Cathedral prayers. In those good old days to which we have referred the Sovereign did not always await the slow process of the law, even when a Bishop crossed his path. To Dr. Cox, Bishop of Ely, Queen Elizabeth is reported to have written as follows:— Proud Prelate, — You know what you woro before I made you what you arc now. It' you do not comply with my request I will unfrock you, by G—! Elizabeth. Even if- that letter were not as apocryphal as it is charming, it would hardly be a good model for King George to follow. But it would strengthen one's respect for the law if "the Bishop of Liverpool were laid by the heels for his flagrant contempt of Court, and iJie Dean and Chapter and some representative members of last Sunday's congregation wore sent to keep him company. We might be quite sure then that the law is no respecter of persons! j