LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
From: Sydney Elliott, John Connell, Professor H. J. Eysenck, S. T. Fisher, Ronald Hingley, Isherwood, A. H. Verkuyl, Robert Rhodes James,. E. M. Hazelton, Philip Williams, Nissim Rejwan, Peter Owen.
Press Freedom
SIR,—In the course of his very proper condemna- tion of contempt of court as one of 'the bugbears of the British press,' Mr. Giles Playfair comments: 'No doubt Lord Shawcross is right in believing that it would be an important reform if, as Lord Goddard proposed twelve years ago, such proceed- ings were not to be brought except at the instance of the Attorney-General.
Of course Lord Shawcross is right. The fiat of the Attorney-General should be essential to the initiation of all contempt of court proceedings. Lord Shawcross, however, is wrong and, unwittingly. I am sure, unfair to Lord Goddard in suggesting that the former Lord Chief Justice made his reforming proposal only twelve years ago.
More than thirty years ago I heard Lord Goddard expressing his view with typical clarity and pun- gency. He was delivering judgment in what he called a 'cost-catching action' for contempt of court raised against me and the newspaper I then edited.
Lord Goddard was Lord Chief Justice during five years in which Lord Shawcross was Attorney- General and another vigorous reformer, the late Lord Jowitt, was Lord Chancellor. There is some evidence that Lord Goddard's interest in the con- tempt of court problem and its attendant abuses was sustained during these five years.
Perhaps Lord Shawcross, who now lectures news- papers on their duty in this matter, can tell us why no reform was effected at that time? If there is lack of reforming zeal within the legal profession, especially on those very rare occasions when its most eminent and able representatives simultaneously exercise political influence and power, editors can have little hope of effecting legal changes for the 5 Frognal Close, NW5
Previous page
