CONTEMPT OF COURT

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 12, 14 July 1939, Page 11

CONTEMPT OF COURT

PUBLISHER FINED

COMMENT BEFORE SENTENCE

"VERY GRAVE" CASE

A fine of £10 and twenty' guineas costs and disbursements was. imposed by judgments delivered by the Supreme Court today on Neil Tonks, publisher of the New Zealand "Truth," for contempt of Court on May 3. Leslie Eric Towns, aged 24, pleaded guilty on April 27 to a serious offence against a girl, the maximum penalty for which was seven years' hard labour and a flogging, once, twice, or thrice. On May 12 Mr. Justice Blair sentenced him to seven years' hard labour amd a flogging of ten strokes (the flogging was cancelled by the Court of Appeal today), but in the meantime "Truth" published a statement urging that Towns be punished with the utmost rigour of the law. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), who, with Mr. Justice Reed, heard the action against the newspaper, said in his judgment that he considered the contempt a very grave one.

The action was taken by the Attor-ney-General, for whom the SolicitorGeneral (Mr. H. H. Cornish, K.C.) appeared. Mr. H. F. O'Leary, K.C., with him Mr. J. H. Dunn, appeared for '"^ruth."

"The publication of the matter complained of is a contempt of Court | only if it was calculated to prejudice, i obstruct, or interfere with the due I administration of justice," said the Chief Justice. "I can entertain no doubt that it was. The Court must not only be free—but must also appear to be free—from any extraneous influence. The appearance of freedom from any such influence is just as important as the reality. PUBLIC CONFIDENCE. "Public confidence must necessarily be shaken if there is the least ground for any suspicion of outside interference in the administration of justice. Any publication therefore that states or implies that the sentences imposed by the Court are, or may be, affected by popular clamour, newspaper suggestion, or any other outside influence is, in my opinion, calculated to prejudice the due administration of justice.

"The newspaper circulates widely throughout New Zealand, and the proceedings before the Magistrate are reported with particularly striking captions and printed in such a way as particularly to attract the attention of the readers of the paper. The passage in question shows that in the opinion of those responsible for the publication Towns's offence demanded that he. should meet with the utmost rigour of the law —meaning, presumably, that nothing less than a sentence of seven years' imprisonment and a flogging or floggings would be adequate punishment.

"If the Court imposed that sentence it might well be assumed by the readers of the paper that the Court had been influenced by. the newspaper's demand. If, on the other hand, a lesser sentence , were imposed, the article was calculated in- anticipation to arouse resentment against the Court —and this though it might well happen that material evidence as to the man's mental condition or other circumstances which were not before the committing Magistrate might be brought before the Supreme Court and result in the imposition of a sentence less severe than that which might appear, to be required on the material placed before the committing Magistrate.

INFLUENCE ON JUDGE

"As the present Lord Chancellor of England said when he was a Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court . . . there is an atmosphere in ■which a common law Judge approaches the question of contempt somewhat different from that in which a Judge who sits in the Chancery Division has to approach it. He said that, in these days, at any l-ate, a Judge who sits in the Chancery Division is not in the least likely to be prejudiced by statements published jn the Press as to the result of cases which are coming before him.

i "Nor, indeed, is a common law Judge in the least likely to be affected consciously by any such publication. But can it be said with certainty— especially in a matter of the sentence of a person convicted of a shocking crime in respect of which public opinion has been aroused —that any man, even a Judge, may not possibly be in some way unconsciously affected? I can think of few things more calculated to injure the due administration and course of justice in criminal cases in public opinion than that any newspaper or newspapers should be permitted to appear to dictate to the Courts what its sentence should be in any particular case. . . .

"HONEST BUT ILL-ADVISED. " "Although we consider that the contempt is in its nature a very grave [One, those connected with the publication of the paper have, through Mr. O'Leary, expressed their regret for the publication if it should be held to be a contempt of Court. We think that it is not unreasonable to regard the matter complained of as an honest but ill-advised expression of indignation aroused by the shocking nature of the crime, and we accept the explanation that the writer of the article and the editor of the paper had no intention of doing anything calculated to interfere with the due course of justice. In all the circumstances we think the ends of justice will be met by the imposition of a small fine."'

Mr. Justice Reed, in his judgment, said: "I agree that a Judge would not consciously allow himself to be influenced by the comment, but its presence would be extremely disturbing to a Judge in the discharge of his duty; to cause which is, in itself, a contempt of Court."