CORRESPONDENCE.
"IN CAMERA."
[To TIEB EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] STR,—The decision of the House of Lords in the case of Scott v. Scott has completely changed the whole law, as it has been generally accepted, in regard to the hearing of cases in camera.
The practice of hearing all suits for nullity of marriage in private has hitherto been accepted as completely legal, not only by popular but by professional and judicial opinion. For years past the Law Reports have only published rulings laid down in such cases by the expedient of carefully concealing the names of the parties concerned and referring to them only under initials. The whole of this long system of practice has now been definitely declared to be illegal. The courts of the land have in such cases no power to order the hearing of suits in camera.
The reason for the necessity of a public hearing being vouchsafed to all suits is very emphatically laid down by
the Law Lords. " Publicity in the administration of justice,"
says Lord Shaw, "is one of the surest guarantees of our liberties." The violation of the rule is declared to be "an attack upon the very foundations of public and private
security." According to the same eminent judge, if the power of hearing cases in camera were confirmed by law,
" then an easy way would be open for judges to remove their proceedings from the light and to silence for ever the voice of the critic and hide the knowledge of the truth. Such an impairment of right would be intolerable in a free country....
Had this occurred in France, I suppose Frenchmen would have said that the age of Louis Quatorze and the practice of
lettrea de cachet had returned." These are strong words. One does not question that they accurately represent the law. But one must admit that the declaration as to the true state of the law gives rise to some most serious reflections.
As the law now stands, there are only three cases in which it is legal, at common law, to hear suits in camera. These
cases arise where matters affecting the interests of infants or of lunatics are concerned—in which cases the court is really exercising a "parental and administrative" jurisdiction and not laying down general principles of law—and where secret processes or analogous matters are under consideration, where publicity would probably render null and void the remedy sought. One may seriously ask, Ought not suits for nullity to, be placed on an equal footing P If the law forbids, ought not a statute to give relief P Everybody knows the nature of these actions. They concern matters of the most intimate and delicate nature, in which no one can possibly have any honest interest beyond the parties immediately con- cerned and certain of their relatives and friends. Lord
SE' law refers to the hearing of the Scott case in camera as "an exercise of judicial power violating the freedom of Mrs.
Scott in the exercise of those elementary and constitutional rights which she possessed." Is this the way in which the order strikes the lay mind P Can any woman be expected to insist on her " right " to have the often painful details of her most intimate relations with her husband made public property merely for the benefit of exciting prurient minds ? This is all that the public hearing of such cases can amount to. The average healthy-minded person never wishes to read the details of such a trial. And it must be obvious that the power to insist on a publics revelation of such facts is capable of such abuse in the hands of an unscrupulous party to nullity proceedings as to deter any modestly minded woman from an attempt to secure her rights.
There is no public advantage to be secured by a reversal of the old rule as it was generally understood. Such a course must be a source of pain to numerous persons. And public opinion which, in the Children's Act, 1908, authorized a police court to hear cases in camera where a child is called as a witness in any proceedings relative to offences against decency or morality, must surely shrink from bringing the light of publicity to bear on the details of some of the saddest and most sordid tragedies of domestic life. It is to be hoped that a short statute will allow to the Divorce Court the dis- cretion to hear nullity suits within closed doors.—I am, Sir, [We agree, provided that either party to the suit should after the close of the case he allowed to publish any portion of the evidence or judgment or arguments which be or she might deem it necessary in order to vindicate his or her character. Publication by other parties should be forbidden. —ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
