CONTEMPT OF COURT

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 9 March 1934, Page 6

CONTEMPT OF COURT

PUBLICATION OF PHOTOGRAPH

PERSON ACCUSED OF CRIME. REASONING OF THE JUDGES. ACTION THOUGHT DELIBERATE, (By lelagrapn —Press Association.! WELLINGTON', March 8. Holding that the publication in a weekly paper “N.Z. Truth, of a photograph of George Edward James, before hrs trial on a charge ot m , u , l dor constituted contempt of comb, the Full Court to-day imposed a fine of £IOO together with 30 guineas costs on. Neil Tonks printer and publisher of the paper. The Full Court, which comprisJd the Chief Justice (Sir Michael MyersV, Mr Justice Maic-Gregor and Mr Justice Blair, was unanimous m its decision,: _i, „ -j- i • In his judgment the Chief Justice .said that fortunately m this case it could no+ be said that publication of tlie photograph did in fact bring about any miscarriage of justice, or prejudice in'any way the fairness of the tiiat, but it was obvious that publication o. a photograph of an • accused person where a question of identity was involved might tend to the prejudice either of the prisoner or of the Cioiyn and in either case bring about a miscarriage of justice. In the present ca.se the fact was that at the- time when the photograph was published the necessary evidence of identity nail not been obtained by the jwliee and identification parados vvene held lat • The effect of the judgment in the Kina- v. “Daily Mirror,” the Chief Justice continued, Was that it was contempt of court in a newspaper to publish a nhotogi-apli of a person charged with a criminal offence where it via.s : reasonably clear the question of the identity of an accused person with the criminal had arisen or might arise, and such publication was calculated to pioiufHde a fair tidal. It could not be doubted that those features were present in this case and that publication of the photograph in “N.Z. Truth” was grave contempt of court.

EXPLANATION UNSATISFACTORY

“Not onlv was it grave hut it seems to have been deliberate,” ,said His Honour. “McNulty, editor of . N.Z. Truth. ’ has filed an affidavit .which to ray mind is bv no means -satisfactory. He says firstly that publication, m photographs of accused persons alter arrest and before trial is customary' and regular in Australia and New Zealand. I have no' knowledge of tlie position in Australia but the editor is undoubtedly wrong in saying such publication is* customary and regular m New Zealand. “McNultv then proceeds to .say m effect that he carefully considered the facts which were then within his knowledge, which facts, ho says, indicated that no question of identity would arise It must he assumed from the: affidavit that the photograph was published deliberately after careful consideration. It was published, to use the words of the Lord Chief Justice m Rex v ‘Dailv* Mirror,’ in the course of the conduct of a money-making business. , . , “It certadny cannot he .suggested that publication was necessary in furtherance of the interests of justice, on the contrary, whatever the, editor inav sav, the necessity or possible necissity of proof of identity should have been "apparent to the mind of any reasonable person not concerned merely in publishing such matter ais might be best calculated to promote the sale of liis newspaper.” . . . Mr Justice iMacGregor in his judgment said it appeared to him that the whole point in tins case was whether it fell within the scope of the King v. ‘Daily-. Mirror.’ . He was clearly of opinion that it did come within, the purview of the judgment of the King s Bench Division in that case. In some respects, indeed it was a clearer ease of contempt of court than they held to be established against tlie ‘Daily Mirror.’ In the course of a. lengthy judgment Mr Justice Blair said: “If the photograph of an accused person is broadcast in a newspaper immediately he is arrested, such of the "witnesses who have not then seen him may unconsciousl- be led into a belief that the accused a,s photographed, is the person they saw.” ~ „