A LEGAL MYSTERY

Greymouth Evening Star, 22 March 1911, Page 3

A LEGAL MYSTERY

STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDINGS. WHY SUCH GREAT SECRECY? MUCH ADVERSE COMMENT. [bt telegraph—peb press association.] WELLINGTON, This Day. The case in which the Court refused to allow the names to be disclosed, came on again yesterday. Information was again refused the Press, but the Dominion states that if certain security be provided, the next that will be heard of the case will be in the Appeal Court next month. SECRECY OF THE COURTS. For some time past legal and commercial circles in Wellington have been talking about a ■ case that has been occupying the attention of the Supreme Court. It appears that for some reason or other not stated the case has been heard in private, and that the newspapers have been barred from publishing any information regarding it. The fact that certain litigation has been taking plhce in this way has, however, now become public property, and the names of the litigants and certain decisions of the Court are already the property of the man in the street. Under the circumstances it would perhaps be better if the Court agreed to the publication of an accurate statement of the case, because, as it is, garbled, or at least inaccurate, versions of the actual position has gained circulation to the detriment of one or other of the litigants. The extraordinary part of the business is that a recent important judgment of the ourt in the matter is actually in the hands of the Press. The reporters secured it in the ordinary way, but before'the next day’s newspapers were set up,'publication was interdicted . REPORTERS REFUSED INFORMATION. In this connection the “Dominion” says : —“The interesting litigation which was alluded to in this paper last Thursday, and is still being, freely discussed in town, was advanced a stage yesterday morning, when the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), sitting in Cham bers, delivered judgment upon a question that had been raised in connection with the case. Reporters were not present. A representative of the “Dominion” made application in the usual quarter for a copy of the judgment. This was refused. Subsequently a letter in the following terms, signed by the reporters of certain newspapers, including the “Dominion,” was sent to the ■Jhief Justice:—Supreme Court (Press table), March 17th, 1911: To his Honour the Chief Justice. —Sir, —We respectfully beg to ask your permission to publish the judgment in , which we understand was delivered by your Honour this morning.—Yours, respectfully. The Chief Justice immediately after receiving the above note, saw the “Dominion” reporter. The judgment was not forthcoming.” STAR CHAMBER METHODS.

Referring editorially to the position that has arisen the “Dominion” directs attention to the practice which is growing np in our law courts of excluding the Press and the public from the hearing of actions not only involving large private interests, but affecting possibly public interests as well .Incidentally attention is drawn to the fact that Mr 1 Justice Edwards recently made it plain that he had no sympathy with “star chamber” methods arid that he had every confidence in the discretion of the Press. Mr Justice Edwards, on that occasion, refused the request of counsel to deal in camera with the question before the court, and passed severe strictures on the actions of certain persons in attempting to influence the court by means of private communications. “We felt called on to comment on his Honour’s attitude, to express our hearty approval of his outspokeriess and to support his recognition of the serious danger underlying any suspicion that our Courts of Justice were susceptible to any influence, outside the merits of actions as dis closed in evidence before the court,” says the “Dominion.” “We revert to the subject because of the attitude of the court in an action which has now been before the Supreme Court f#r something life four years, and which has not yet received publicity. The judges of the Supreme Court, in the exercise of their functions, have of necessity to deal with a number of matters incidental and preliminary to proceedings before the Courts. Such matters are generally taken in Chambers, but for many years past, throughout the Dominion, the newspapers- have reported proceedings in Chambers, and we do not know of any case where this privilege—or, more properly, right—has been - abused. Naturally purely private matters are left alone, because quite outside the fact that they arc of no public concern, the good taste of the newspapers, which the judges themselves have frequently praised, can be safely trusted to ensure that the right and proper thing will be done. Unfortunately. in recent cases in our own Court the Press, as mentioned above, have been excluded on the order of the judge, conveyed through the registrar. No reason was given for this departure from the previously established practice. It has been judicially decided in England that to publish an account of evidence where a case has been heard in camera is punishable as a contempt, Both in the case in question (he judge himself was careful to explain that it was only in special _circumstances that the Court was justified .. . . ' -,r . .. 1. ..

hi sitting in camera. Moreover, he emphasised the desirableness of the courts of justice being open to.„ the public.” IN THE ENGLISH COURTS. The “Dominion” article proceeds to quote the English judge’s remarks in some detail and then adds :—“No one, we think, can take exception to the exercise of a proper discretion by the Court, such as indicated by Mr Justice North in the quotation from his ruling published above. If, however, the matter touches upon the honour or honesty of particular persons, or concerns questions as to the methods adopted by' the Courts to protect the in lerests of persons who seek a remedy from the Court, then it appears us, and it must appear to every thoughtful person, in the highest degree dangerous to take such proceedings in camera. It might suit all parties to the proceedings that they be private. But there is a greater question involved than the mere wishes of the parties. We do not know the reason for the exclusion of the reporters and the suppression by order of the Court of the publication of even the names of the parties in an action now before the Court. If the case comes within the exceptions quoted by Mr Justice North, it would have been a simple matter for the Court to so inform the Press. But such information lias not been supplied, and an uneasy feeling exists in consequence. The strongest safeguard which our Courts possess—the surest way to retain the profound public confidence which has been reposed in them in the past—is to throw wide the doors of the Courts of Justice to the public and 1,0 the Press. The individual, at times, may suffer hardship, but the ends of justice will be better served. Me have refrained from comments on the action now being heard in private locally, although we are strongly of opinion

that the Court would have been studying the public interest by- taking the latter stages of the action in open Court. We may find it necessary, to emphasise that point in a subsequent issue.”- : ■

“CONTEMPT OF COURT. ” . The Wellington “Post” makes the folio wing, allusion to the case : —“Whether a case in Chambers shall or shall not be heard in private is in the discretion of the judge and that discretion has been exercised in a case which has been before the judges in Wellington _ for some years past. Further proceedings in this action were taken in Chambers yesterday, and the presiding judge directed that the Press should not be represented, any mention of the case being, forbidden. To disregard this injunction would make the offending publisher liable to “contempt of Court.” The law has to be obeyed, so the case was not reported. When the suit has been determined it may be necessary to review the whole practice. The “Post” publishes a special article on “In Chambers Proceedings” and makes certain statements on the authority of “a learned legal gentleman.” This authority, in the course of his remarks, says:-—“I have no doubt that the Judge has power to exclude the public and the Press, but as a matter of public policy and decency, that power should only be exercised on strong grounds. The usual ground is when innocent children are concerned in divorce cases. It has been the custom for many years in Wellington to report Chamber sittings.” THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS ATTACKED. The Otago Daily Times says that the Wellington case does not seem to come within the category of those in which private interests only are involved, and if so, the prohibition which the Court has placed upon the proceedings in connection with it may well be said to be opposed to public interests, as any attack upon the liberty of the Press involves also an attack upon the public freedom. The tendency shown is one to be jealously watched by the people of the Dominion.