COURT CASE DISPUTE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23595, 3 September 1938, Page 15

COURT CASE DISPUTE

MAGISTRATE AND REPORTER DEFENDANT'S NAME WITHHELD "INCIDENT" MAGNIFIED (From Our Own Correspondent) (By Air Mail) LONDON, Aug. 11, •At a time when a certain uneasiness has arisen in England concerning the application of the Official Secrets Act —which has come into prominence over the Sandys and other cases—and when allegations are being made that there is an attempt to "put Britain into blinkers," and to restrict the freedom of the press, an apparently trivial incident at London's South Western Police Court has been magnified out of all proportion to its importance. It has been reported to the Home Secretary, and it is likely that a legal dispute may result. Questions are to be asked in Parliament next session. The central figures are a magistrate, Mr Claud Mullins, and a court reporter, Mr R. L. Marshall. A summons against Mrs Mullins, the magistrate's wife, for exceeding the speed limit of 12 m.p.h. in Battersea Park was heard at the South Western Court by Mr Clyde Wilson, the second magistrate. It was referred to as 35A, no name was mentioned, and. when Mr Marshall inquired as to the nature of the case he was told, "Just speeding." He noticed that when he was handed the list of summonses to take the names before the court sat, 35A was not among them. SUMMONS POCKETED When the case was heard, Mr Wilson was told that the defendant had a clean record for many years. He dismissed it on payment of costs, and he commented. "A splendid record." Mr Marshall did not attach particular importance to it until he heard the motorist referred to as " she," and the summons was carefully kept from him and pocketed by the warrant officer. When Mr Marshall asked for the name he was given that concerning another case. Eventually he was able to obtain it only after writing a letter to Mr Wilson. The result was that whereas the case would have been reported in three or four lines only, a number of newspapers devoted considerable space to it. Mr Mullins made a statement, from the Bench at the South-western Court. He said that he had given no special directions in regard to case 35A. save 'hat it was not to be heard on one of his clays. He also said that solicitors defending motorists usually went to the warrant officer before the sit-

ting of the court and stated in which cases they were appearing and in which there were pleas of guilty. In such cases it frequently happened that t.h? name of the defendant was not called in court. Further spacer was devoted to the incident after 'Mr Mullins had refused to see journalists when they went to interview him and Mrs Mullins It was alleged that he slammed the door in their faces, tore up their visiting cards, and told them to "go to hell." Later he had a private interview with several journalists, but he barred a reporter from the Sunday Express because the Daily Express had " acted improperly" over the case. That merely added fuel to the fire. MAGISTRATE'S LETTERS „ Subsequently he wrote two letters to Mr Marshall. In the first he called on Mr Marshall to "refute or admit.' that he knew before the day the -case was heard that a summons was out against Mrs Mullins; that he attended the court specially, for the case; that several absent motorists who pleaded guilty, were defended by an A.A. solicitor and the names of at least two of them (apart from Mrs Mullins) were not called in court. Mr Marshall replied refuting the suggestions in the first two points, agreeing with the third point and setting out in detail the events in the court when the case was heard. ,- Later, Mr Marshall received a second letter from Mr Mullins—it was marked "not for publication." and written in reply to Mr Marshall. In this letter Mr Mullins accused Mr Marshall of improper conduct in reporting the case as he did. Mr Mullins said that Mr Mar-, shall must have known that the result of his reports would be an accusation against Mr Mullins and against the methods of administering justice at th« court. It referred to the personal distress' caused to Mr Mullins and his family by these reports and added that Mr Mul-' lins was entitled to resent the damage done to the public confidence in the court. "The moment is obviously not one in which I can take any action, but after the holidays I"shall consult certain eminent people I know in th£ world of journalism and ask their advice as to how best I can deal with your general conduct," the letter concluded. Mr Marshall's comment was: " 1 shall take legal advice. Mr Mullins has accused me of improper conduct in the way I reported Case No. 35A. I deny, this. As a reporter it is my duty to find out who was the defendant in the case. The more the officials put me oft. the more determined I became." / ~ The case has been commented upon by nearly every newspaper, and several have made indictments of "hush hush" tendencies towards the press.