—Y ou are quite wrong to state, as you do in
your editorial on the Powers trial, that the English law of contempt is framed only to protect the accused from !hat might otherwise be an unfair trial. The law is uesigned to protect the fairness of the trial for both "capon and defence; in the nature of things the "caPon will be more frequently employed where the ;lecused's position is prejudiced. If I were now to lrildulge in a pavan of praise for the literary merits of Chatterley's Lover—as indeed Bernard Levin does in your issue—both you and I would be com- ,s,Iting a contempt of court. And since there is a ''ew that contempt can be committed where* pro- ,ceedings are clearly anticipated although no arrest pro- has been made or warrant has been issued Atrmay have already transgressed the law in Mr. Levin's delightful tilt at the authorities who prosecute for t3beene libel. Is it right also to lodge Sariet law against the maxims of Lenin? I think the 1958 code has grave defects, but it does represent a step away from rigid lUbSCrVierley of the courts to the State. I do not suggest that the Soviet courts are a bulwark against the State on behalf of the individual, but there are Welcome signs that the Soviet courts in non-political matters are more frequently doing justice than could
ever have been envisaged during the pre-Khrushchev era.—Yours faithfully, L. J. BLOM-COOPER 20 Lancaster Park, Richmond, Surrey
[Mr. Blom-Cooper is mistaken: we did not argue that the law of contempt is framed 'only to protect the accused'—though that ought to be its main pur- pose: we said it was 'simply to enable the accused to have a fair trial.' No trial would be fair if the prosecution was not also given protection; but in the nature of things it is usually the defendant who needs it.—Editor, Spectator.]
Previous page
