MURDER CASE ECHO

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18336, 2 March 1934, Page 11

MURDER CASE ECHO

NEWSPAPER CHARGED CONTEMPT ALLEGATION PUBLICATION OE PHOTOS * - (Per Ptoss Association.) WELLINGTON, tins day. An action is proceeding in the Supreme Court to-day of the Attorney-General against Neil Tonks, the registered prihter and publisher of TJrJutJi, for alleged contempt of court in the publication of photographs of George Edward James after his arrest on a charge or mtirder. The Solicitor-General, Mr. A. Fair, K.C., oh-behalf of the Attorney-General, asked that" Tonks be filled or dealt with as the court thought fit, The motion was heard by the Full Cdurt, the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Mjlers, presiding, and With him on the bench were Mr. Justice MacGregor and My. Justice Blair. Mr. H. F. O’Leary and Mr. J. 11. Dlinn appeared on behalf of Tonks to oppose the motion. Mr. Pair said the motion was made by the law.offioers of the Crown, consequent upon the matter- being mentioned to them by the Crown Prosecutor, at the direction of the Chief Justice, who presided at the trial of James. The Chief Justice: Hardly at my direction, Mr. Solicitor. The Crown Prosecutor at the trial asked certain questions. The papers were not before me. I said that the matter had been the subject of comments from the bench and the Attorney-General before, and that %rif there had been such a publication the Crown Prosecutor had better bring it before the notice of the Crown law officers.

Mr. Fair, resuming, said that on July 26 a reproduction of a photograph of JUtaes, a person subsequently charged With murder, together with -printed matter giving his name and stating that he had been charged with murder, were published in New Zealand Truth. Their Honors would see that it was a fairsized reproduction, purporting to give Site a good picture of the features. lor tb July 26, James had beeii charged' with the murder of Mrs. Smith, wlio was found dead in Wellington on Juhe 30. From the letter script alongside the photograph in Truth, it was qttite clear that those in charge of the paper knew that a charge had been made. The staff of Truth included the printer, who was assumed tb know everything he printed, and he should have appreciated that the question of identification Would arise. The tragedy was featured -in sensational type over the wliolO width of the page. The submission of the Crown was that if a newspaper published information concerning a criminal trial, and that information had a tendency to interfere with the proper conduct of the trial, then the paper was liable for contempt of court. If, of course, the information published had no such tendency, then they were not liable. Later, Mr. Fair said it only required a moment’s thought to> show that it might Have been a possible defence that Jataes had been out of the flat, and that it was a stranger who entered and took the boy away. One could not tell what the defence was going to be until it was called on in the Supreme Court. It was submitted that the printer and publisher should have realised that any act which iwas likely tb render identification more or less reliable, would be calcu- " to interfere with the fairness of

the trial. Mk Pair said a very similar case to the present one occurred in England in 1927, and’ the proprietors ol the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail were ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution, which, of course, were considerable. Since that time, the Chief Justice and a former Attorney Generali Sir Thomas Sidey, had drawn attention to the* danger of publishing photographs of accused persons in such circumstances. 'Practically every newspaper in the Dominion had endeavored to comply with the suggestions made, but in* this particular case Truth had not. The photographs had either been published in deliberate defiance of the law, or else in gross and careless disregard of the obligations to the law. In view of the time that had elapsed since the publication of the photographs, and the fact that this was the first case of its kind in New Zealand, it was not suggested that Tonks should be committed to prison. He submitted that the case would be met by a fine. Tonks, in a filed affidavit, said he had no knowledge of the contents of the - paper until after, it had been Erin ted. Nevertheless, in law he - was eld responsible. The affidavit filed by the editor, McNulty, was what he could only describe as a very surprising affidavit from a man in his position. He said lie did not think it would be necessary for the Crown to identify the person seen leaving the house, or to call evidence of ideritification of the accused. He apparently developed that argument, and then he seemed to ignore or disregard the fact that the defence might not have called any evidence at all. McNulty referred to a letter written by James, and found on the wharf, as an admission of the crime. The letter was by no means an admission. McNulty went on to state an instance where the publication of .photographs had brought a witness of •W identification. That was all very well, the affidavit amounted to an argument that the newspaper was entitled to take the risk. The judgment of the court in the Daily Mirror case rendered that argument absurd. Mr. Fair said the Court of Criminal Appeal in England had, in many cases, pointed out that the practice of showing a photograph to a witness before he saw the accused was unfair and -improper conduct. It had quashed trials and convictions on the* ground that an improper practice had been followed. It was obvious that exactly the same consequence followed from the publication in, the press of photographs prior to identification. These decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal were widely known to members of the press. At the trial of James, it was neees- ’ sdry to identify him ns the person seen leaving the house when the woman’s body wasjjftund. A witness to whom James previously known had been called to identify him. This witness had actually seen the photograph of James in Truth, and that Tendered it necessary for the Crown Prosecutor to lead evidence to show that he was not influenced in identification by that. 'Mr Fair went on to explain the term contempt of court did not consist of any such attitude to the court itself, but to conduct which tended to prejudice a fair trial of the case. Mr. O’Leary contended for the defence that the court’s salutary power should only be exercised in - cases where something had bebu done which was clearly intended or calculated to prejudice the trial. He contended that it was apparent to any reasonable man that the question of identity would not arise, and that the case had not been prejudiced. Bte also contended that the photograph in Truth was not sufficiently good to enable .Tames to be identified. WM ■ Alttet'further legal argument, the court decision,