A DANGEROUS DECISION.

Evening Star, Issue 14962, 23 August 1912, Page 4

A DANGEROUS DECISION.

A most, dangerous decision was given in the Court of Appeal on July 6 in the case of Scott v. Scott. A lady, at the conclusion of a nullity suit, heard in camera, sent copie» of the official shorthand writer's notes to friends and relations. The question to be tried was whether this conduct did not anio.nt to contempt of court. Four Judges decided that it did. In a very able article the ' Westminster Gazette' points out that it follows that whenever the Judges exercisa what they claim to be " their inherent jurisdiction of ciosing the courts, they impose a rule of secrecy upon the parties and debar them from communicating an authentic record of the proceedings to friends, relatives, or others whose good opinion they value or right knowledge of the facts they deem essential." This is a most dangerous claim, fraught with evil. It means not only that, at the discretion of the Judges, secret tribunals should be eet up, but that also the men and women who have invoked the aid of the court can never speak of what has passed at the hearing. This was pointed out by Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton in a very able and conclusive judgment. In this ha said, and the remarks will be well remembered r ,; The conception of the Court interfering with litigants otherwise than by granting relief which it. is empowered to grant is wholly vicious, and strikes at tho foundation of the status and duties of Judges." Lord Justice Moulton holds the judgment to be in effect a usuipction by the courts. The lady who obtained the relief she sough', did the natural thing in giving her relatives the opportunity of judging tho facts bv communicating to them a full account of tho proceedings. Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton that her conduct appears, on the face or it, to conform both to propria? and duty. There was no attempt to v.ilate decency by publication. If there had bt?n there would have been somethin" to say :or the majority of the Judges. What the majority did was to impose a rule, of silence upon the litigants without any necessity in the public interest. It will be necessary to define and limit by a statute the " inherent jurisdiction " which the Judges claim and to limit the veto on publication so that it shall go no further than a prohibition against any action which would outrage public deeency.—' British Weekly.