Let justice be done
The recent spectacle of the Attorney-General, Sir Peter Rawlinson, arguing before the Lord Chief Justice and two other judges in the Queen's Bench Division, that it was in the public interest to commit London Weekend Television Ltd for contempt of court in broadcasting an item about thalidomide children, and that it was also in the public interest tlhat the Sunday Times be restrained from publishing an article on the same subject,, has not been particularly edifying. In these two cases complex issues are raised, which may or may not be determined when the court gives its judgements. The Attorney-General has asserted that the administration of justice, protected by the law relating to contempt of court, is, in effect, a higher public interest than the public interest inVolved, in the words of a parallel Australian case, "in a free discussion of matters of public interest and importance." That there is frequently a conflict of interest between the right of free speech and discussion and the need to avoid the risk of prejudice to a fair trial, none will deny. The AttorneyGeneral's contention is that preventing the Sunday Times from publishing would serve the higher interest: and that, if so, "lit was one of those restrictions on the right of free speech which the law imposed for reasons. It was the higher interest which created in itself that which the law did not permit and called contempt of court" (as the Law Report reported him.). These are obscure words; and the Government seems to be unaware that it is running the risk that the public will conclude that it is using all the resources and obscurities of the law to hinder free discussion of the plight of the thalidomide children, and thereby assisting, whether by design or not, the Distillers Company in their own legal efforts to minimise the amount of compensation they may have to pay.
The public, which must find it difficult enough to follow, let alone to accept, the Attorney-General's contention, is likely also to dislike the way the Prime Minister effectively dismissed Mr Jack Ashley's suggestion that a publicly financed thalidomide foundation might be established to look after the children, pending the outcome of the legal processes. "I will carefully consider this suggestion," Mr Heath wrote, "but I think it would be premature to make a decision on it before we see how the legal discussions between the company and the parents come out." It is not surprising that Mr Ashley, who is Labour Member for Stoke South, burst out "I am sick of expressions of sympathy and excuses for inaction. The Prime Minister is guilty of prevarication."
The law seemingly requires us not to speak our mind, as yet, on the matters between the Distillers, who made and marketed the drug, and the parents and children who have suffered from it. Prudence dictates, further, that we say nothing of the issues outstanding between the Attorney-General on the one hand and the Sunday Times and London Weekend Television on the other. But we are entitled to say this: that the Government is in very grave danger indeed of becoming associated, in the public mind, with the Distillers Company's legal activities, which have had the effect (whatever their intention) of delaying the payment of compensation to the thalidomide children and their parents. Doubtless there is no collusion between the Government and the Company to utilise the law against the interests of the thalidomide children. But the Government should realise that the public, as opposed to the lawyers, will be sure that it is in the public interest that justice is done to the thalidomide children and Will insist that nothing — not the law, not the Government, not the Distillers —be allowed to stand in the way.
Previous page
