Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5589, 23 January 1879, Page 4

A recent case in Dunedin opens up the question of newspaper law-reporting. e representatives of newspapers are admitted to the Court because the administration of justice is public. As the whole public cannot be present, the trial is transferred in some shape, more or less abreviated, to the columns of the news-

paper for the benefit of the majority. It is obvious that there should be some check on the character of these reports. They should bo truthful, or they become worse than useless, for an incorrect report may be extremely chievous, either to the reputation of the Judge, of the officers of the Court, or other members of the public, An unchecked system of bad reporting may, it is obvious, be made a strong engine of oppression in the hands of unscrupulous men. In the case to which we allude, one of the barristers engaged drew the Judge’s attention to what he considered a too highly coloured report of the case that bad appeared in one of the newspapers. The Judge said that he considered it highly undesirable to take judicial notice of what appeared in a newspaper, unless the proprietor was before the Court for the purpose. The answer is wise, for judicial comment may seriously prejudice any action that may be brought by the aggrieved party, or the party thinking himself aggrieved, against the newspaper proprietor, and such an action has since been threatened, for heavy damages. Further, there are cases of incorrectness, in which reports may be so evidently false as to be gross contempt of Court, for which the Judges, we imagine, may call the responsible persons to appear before them ; and there are cases in which — and it must be remembered that the great majority of newspaper law reports are not verbatim reports there may be great difference of opinion, as te the manner in which the necessary condensation has been managed, on which a judicial decision cannot be arrived at without considerable argument on both sides. To the second class of these it is fair to infer that Judge Williams considered the case to belong; and this consideration supplies another reason why his refusal to take judicial note of the matter must be considered wise. There are other kinds of imperfection which Judges, who would probably quite agree with the ruling of Mr Justice Williams, are continually referring to from the Bench—cases of error, frequently unavoidable, which, in the interests of truth, require no more judicial notice than is sufficient for public correction. Journalists have got to consider three things, if they should be inclined to carelessness or worse. In the case of incorrect reports there may be judicial correction, pure and simple, or judicial correction followed by punishment for contempt—and how far this extends it is impossible for any one who does not know the mind of every Judge in the Anglo-Saxon world to say—or there may be action for damages by an aggrieved party. The encouragement to correct reporting is not by any means weak.