recent abuses by the courts of their Contempt powers. Under
the heading 'New Muzzle for Free Press' the writer pointed out that in the last two years a number of cases, notably the convictions of the People and of W. H. Smith and Sons, have unnecessarily limited press freedom. In the People case the judgment even implied that it may be a contempt to show up a criminal before he has been prosecuted . . . if to do so might conceiv- ably prejudice his chances of a fair trial when he is brought to trial. For authority for these rulings the courts have had to go back to a judgment of Lord Hardwicke in 1742—a time when every weapon in the judicial armoury was being brought to bear on the press because it was emerging as hostile to the established order. These points have been made in the Spectator on more than one occasion recently; but The Times writer adds one or two new ones—notably a recent judgment in a Chancery case: that it is contempt to publish even the result of proceedings in Chambers although no question of prejudicing a fair trial could arise. `Since only a small minority of cases in the High Court ever reach the light of open court, this amounts to a virtual ban on the publication of anything to do with the great majority of such proceedings.' There is no justification for con- tempt procedure as it is now exercised, with its trappings of arbitrary power, and its denial of the normal right of trial by jury and of appeal.
Previous page
