COURT CASE PUBLICITY

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXVIII, Issue 4604, 2 October 1934, Page 6

COURT CASE PUBLICITY

IMPROPER DETAILS.

POWERS OF JUDGES OR MAGISTRATES.

The value of publicity as a deterrent in certain cases was stressed by Mr. W. J. Broadfoot in the House of Representatives last week, when, on behalf of Statutes Revision Committee, heTpresented the Committee's findings on the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill. The Bill has been drastically amended, and now provides only for the extension of the existing law to probihit the publication of photographs or caricatures of parties to judicial proceedings except with the written consent of the persons concerned or the presiding Magistrate or Judge. Moreover, the onus of proving that authority was obtained will not rest on the defendant.

In presenting the Committee's report, Mr. Broadfoot stated that in the opinion of the Committee the present law was adequate to control the publication of improper details. The clauses struck but sought to prohibit, in relation to any judicial proceedings, publication of any indecent matter, and indecent medical and like details, the publishing of which would be calculated to injure public morals; and to restrict reports of proceedings in divorce or under the Destitute Person Act. It had been jDrop'osed to prohibit, except with the written authority of the presiding Judge or Magistrate, in relation to any judicial proceedings for dissolution or nullity of marriage, judicial separation, and guardianship orders, any particulars other than the following:—Names, addresses, and description of parties, witnesses, and solicitors," a concise statement of the charges, defences and counter-charges, in support of which evidence had been given; submissions on any point of law, and the Court's decision; and the summing up of the Judge, the finding of the jury (if any), the judgment of the Court, and observations made by the Judge or Magistrate in giving judgment. Mr. Broadfoot said that the whole questions involved in the Bill were really questions of opinion as to whether that publicity should be a full publicity or a limited one. The Bill was on the lines of the Imperial Statute, and he claimed that the law in New Zealand was not the same as it was in Great Britain when that Act was brought down. "We find that for the last thirty years very wide discretionary power has been invested in our Judges and Magistrates when dealing with cases of this nature," said Mr. Broadfoot. "They have the power not only to hear cases in camera but also to prevent the publication of the whole or any part of the proceedings. Similar provisions were incorporated in the Destitute Persons Act and also in the Crimes Act.

"In 1926 there was no power in the English law to hear cases in camera or to prevent the publication of the preceedings unless in very special cases, these special cases being suits dealing with the nullity of marriages and with secret processes where it would be unfair to broadcast processes to the general public. Then the Imperial Act was passed, and in my opinion, and in the opinion of many other people, it went a little too far in preventing publication. In looking up statistics I find that the increases in divorces from 1926—when the Act was passed in Great Britain —to 1932, has been 45 per cent. I feel that publicity is a great deterrent, and divorce cases have multiplied seriously under a system of hearing them privately. In New Zealand, not only the Judges and the Magistrates, but the newspapers also, have exercised a sound discretion as to what should be published. I think that discretion has been excellently used, but in the future we may have a Press arise which will riot treat cases with the same degree of tact, and then it will be time to shackle the Press, as is palpably desired in this legislation. "Publicity is the greatest deterrent, but the present publicity is afforded only to a few favoured people, people of leisure full of curiosity and with morbid minds who go to Court to hear these proceedings. If a man or woman is guilty of a crime against the social code their doings should not be limited to the people who inhabit the precincts of the Court, but the knowledge of their doings should be made available to the public at large.

Mr. Broadfoot said that in 1931 in Queensland a Bill similar to the Imperial Act was passed, and that it was repealed in 1932, mainly on the grounds which he had mentioned. "I think that the publishing of photographs is the modern method of publicity," said Mr. Broadfoot, "and there should be no more restriction on photographs than on printed reports in these cases. Personally, I disagree with the Bill, which I do not think is in the interests of the general public, and 1 find on searching the Queensland reports that there has been no

suggestion of bringing into force again the legislation repealed in 1932. This is legislation to benefit a minority, and such legislation is invariably to the detriment of the great majority."

The report was still being discussed when the House adjourned.