NO MUZZLING OF PRESS

Evening Star, Issue 21835, 26 September 1934, Page 2

NO MUZZLING OF PRESS

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BILL EMASCULATED REPORT OF REVISION COMMITTEE PUBLICITY A DETERRENT [From Ouk Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, September 26. So many amendments have been made in the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill by the Statutes Revision Committee that this Govemment measure will only extend the present law to the extent that photographs or drawings of persons engaged in judicial proceedings may not be published except with the authority of the person portrayed. The committee deleted that portion of this clause which sought to throw,on the defendant the burden of proof that he published the photograph or drawing with the authority of the person concerned. All the other main operative clauses in the measure were deleted by the committee, and the reasons were explained by its chairman, Mr Broadfoot, who showed that, in the committee’s opinion, the present law is adequate-to control the publication of improper details of judicial proceedings. It was, be said, covered by Section sof the Poice Offences Act. There was also provision in the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act and the Destitute Persons Act, which set out restrictions (which he enumerated) on the facts which could be published. Clause 5 of the Bill under consideration sought to limit the publication of photographs or caricatures of a judge or magistrate presiding over judicial proceedings, and also that of the witnesses and other parties, except with the authority or the judge or magistrate presiding. Air Broadfoot suggested that the whole of the questions involved in the Bill were really questions of opinion as to whether publicity in the newspapers was desirable or not. and whether publicity should be full or limited. The Bill was on the lines of an Imperial Statute, the Judicial Reports (Regulation of Proceedings) Act v 1926. He claimed that the law in New Zealand was not the same as the law in Britain when that Act was passed, because the committee had found that for thirty years there had been discretionary power invested in our judges and magistrates when dealing with cases of the nature included in the English Act. In England, prior to 1926, there was no liowor to hear cases in camera, or to limit the evidence which should be published. except in special eases, such as whore secret processes were concerned. In his opinion, the Imperial Act had gone a little too far in limiting publication.

Air Fraser (Wellington Central): What have been the injuries done to anybody ?

Air Itroadfoot replied by quoting an extract, from the 1 l.aw Times ’ that the experience of the Act had borne out

its original conclusion that severe restrictions on the publication of details would render resort to the Divorce Court much more common. This authority quoted with approval the statement of a judge that publicity was a deterrent to social misconduct. The member reinforced this quotation by stating that statistics in England showed that, since 1926, when the Act was passed, there had been an increase of 46 per cent, in the number of divorce cases.

Mr Fraser; Attributable to that Act?

Mr Broadfoot: Yes, iu my opinion largely attributable to the Act. I feel that publicity is a great deterrent, and that privacy has undoubtedly facilitated the taking of cases to court which ofttimes would be settled to the advantage of everyone.

Mr Mason (Auckland Suburbs): What does the hon. gentleman wish to deter? Justice or the crime? Mr Broadfoot declared that the discretion given to New Zealand judges and magistrates and to the Press had been operated in an excellent way. There might be in the future a Press which would not exhibit the same degree of tact, but it would ha time enough to deal with that when it arose, without shackling the Press of to-day by the proposed legislation. The publicity of the courts themselves was limited to those people of leisure, with morbid minds, who attended the proceedings, but he held that publicity should not stop with the court, but that if there was a man or a woman guilty of crimes against the social code this should not only be known to the people who frequented the court, but to the general public at large, and if a person was proved to be of bad character, he or she should be known by a photograph. Queensland, in 1931, passed an Act similar to that of the English Statute, but repealed it the following year, because it was found that there was sufficient statutory authority to deal with undesirable publicity. The committee had had evidence that, through publicity, honourable men and women falsely accused of charges which affected their reputation had found persons to come forward to establish their innocence. The committee, stated Mr Broadfoot, recommended the elimination'of clause 4 so that the question of the publication of reports wbuld thus be left, ns at present, to the discretion of the presiding officer or the Press. As for clause 5, dealing with the publication of photographs, it provided that, if a photograph was published the onus of proving that the newspaper had the authority for publication was thrown on the newspaper. “ t say that this is an abuse of one of the basic principles of British law,” declared Mr Broadfoot. “It is for the prosecuting side to carry the onus of proving guilt.” The committee, however, considered that there was some reason for preventing the publication of photographs, though personally be believed publicity by photograph was a modern method of publicity, and that there should be no more restriction on photographs than upon printed reports. To that extent lie disagreed with the Bill. Mr Broadfoot reiterated that Queensland in 1932 repealed an Act framed on the British law. and had since seen no reason to alter its attitude. Such legislation, in his opinion, was for the benefit of a minority and would operate in-

variably to the detriment of the majority. Mr H. G. R. Mason (Auckland Suburbs) declared that his experience went to show the necessity for no publicity in domestic cases, and that the arguments of the previous speaker proved that people had been deterred from claiming justice because of the liability of having their domestic troubles gloated over by the readers of newspapers. Those who were responsible for the welfare of young children shrank from having cases brought into court if there was to be full publicity. He had seen too much of this sort of thing to become heroic over the rights of the Press, which catered to the most depraved instincts of humankind. A critical view of the report was also taken by Mr Fraser (Wellington Central), who suggested that it was extraordinary to find the chairman of a conimßtee attacking a Government Bill. “ A majority of the committee are Government members, and the Bill is a Government Bill; yet it is to go almost lock, stock, and barrel. All we have left are a few splinters out of the barrel. 1 don’t see how any Minister of the Crown can lie down to that sort of thing. 1 don’t see how, once having put his hand to the plough, he can turn back or run away from the plough, in spite of the barrage of pseudo-legal knowledge put forward by the member for Waitomo.” The whole purpose of the Bill was to protect the young people of the community, the most impressionable section, from filth. Could that be said to be in the interests of a minority, or was it in the interests of a majority? One of the leading editors in the dominion, the late Mr Mark Cohen, had been one of the strongest supporters of the proposals contained in the Bill, and so interested had he been in the subject that he had corresponded with the newspaper proprietors of Great Britain. The replies he received showed that there had been no feeling against the Bill in England, although the newspaper proprietors had objected to it at the start. He hoped, in spite of the committee’s recommendation, that the Bill would be allowed to proceed. Mr W. P. Endean (Parnell) urged members to take a reasonable view of the measure. He was convinced that a great body of opinion outside the House was that the Bill in th • most part was absolutely unnecessary, in that it wa» largely covered by the existing statutes. The report was talked out.