COURT REPORTING

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21921, 3 October 1934, Page 13

COURT REPORTING

Tt PROPOSALS OF BILL MODIFICATION PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS DEBATED [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER"! WELLINGTON, Tuesday The modification of the terms of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill by the Statutes Revision Committee was again discussed in the House to-day and the report was tabled. The debate on the subject last week had been interrupted by the adjournment. The opinion that all the necessary powers were contained in existing legislation was expressed by Mr. W. P. Endean (Government —Parnell). Some members had attacked newspapers for purveying unsavoury details of cases, but that criticism was hardly fair. One or two papers might have a tendency in that direction, but the great majority were above such actions and Parliament must legislate for the majority. The New Zealand press, by and large, maintained a high standard. Police Court Evidence Mr. Endean commented on the publication of evidence in the Lower Court. He said that in the case of Rex versus Munn, where the accused was charged with murder, certain evidence in the .Lower Court was published before the case was hoard in the Supreme Court, and although it was ruled out later, it was taken into consideration by at least one member of the jury. He thought the Attorney-General would bo well advised to consider the desirability of suppressing publication of evidence given in the Lower Court. That could not prejudice the Crown's case', but publication in the Lower Court might prejudice the accused's case. The only matter on which he had a doubt was the question of photographing. Evidence was given to the committee of a case in which a man was photographed manacled to a detective. The publication of such a photograph was a very grave injustice and must seriously have affected the man on his trial. That was certainly a matter with which the Court should have power to deal. Mr. F. "VV. Schramm (Labour —Auckland East) said that in the interests of justice, witnesses giving evidence in certain proceedings should not bo embarrassed by photographers waiting at the doors of Courts to snap them on their departure. It was for the Minister to see that his bill went through in the form in which it was introduced. It was not a usual thing for a Minister to abandon part of a bill because of a majority report of a committee. The bill was in the interests of all concerned. Discretionary Power Given Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Government — Waitomo), chairman of the committee, said that for over 30 years New Zealand had been in advance of the British Parliament in its methods of handling publicity in connection with cases of the type referred to in the bill. The Dominion gave discretionary power to Judges and magistrates mot only to hear actions in camera, but also to forbid publication of any part of the proceedings. On top of that there was the discretion oif tho press. It was not until 1926 that the House o!r Commons moved in the matter of limiting the details of proceedings that could be published. He thought that was a wrong lino of action to take. Were the Dominion to copy the British 1926 legislation it would be taking a retrograde step. "When the basic rule of our law was laid down that the Courts should be open to everyone, the number of people that could be interested in Court proceedings was limited because of the lack of transport and the limitation of newspapers," added Mr. Broadfoot. "Those limitations have now been largely removed. Therefore tliosse who have not rtime to in Court are just as entitled to know what has taken place there as the large number of people wjio can attend the proceedings. "The question is whether publicity is or is not a deterrent. I claim, after having had many years of experience in eases of this nature, that publicity is tho greatest deterrent we have, and if we close the doors of Courts or close tbe columns of our newspapers to these cases, breaches of the social code will seriously increase." The report was tabled. The committee recommended the deletion of the clause dealing with the restriction on the publication of reports of judicial proceedings, and the deletion of the clause regulating the .reports of proceedings in divorce or under the Destitute Persons Act. The committee also proposed to amend the clause prohibiting the publication of unauthorised photographs of persons engaged in judicial proceedings by putting the onus on the prosecution to show that such publication nas not authorised, instead of making the defendant prove his innocence.