SIR,—May I add to Mr. Carter-Ruck's comment.
hich surely goes far to meeting the criticisms in your leading article, My own deeply felt doubts on the desirability of legislation to define contempt? If there is any single point on which courts should be allowed to judge for themselves, this must be it. An Act purporting to define contempt, and thus to exclude certain actions which may now result in a committal, would simply be an invitation to any- body wishing to pervert justice. It would also largely rob the courts of the freedom they have alwa possessed, and ‘1 hich nobody really contends ;hey don't mind. . . should not enjoy. Like any freedom it can be abused; but any limiting Act would, in the nature of the ease, give protection almost solely to the contemnor, and so create a different and more dangerous abuse. —Yours faithfully,
Previous page
