The Gazette 1961 - 64

is therefore compelled to withdraw from these proceedings and will not consider itself bound by any order made ex parte which the union submits would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Industrial Disputes Act." The appellant after handing in the statement, withdrew from the proceedings, and the question in this appeal was whether the statement could amount to contempt where it was made by the appellant in pursuance of, or what he honestly believed to be, his duty as counsel representing a party to a proceeding in Court. Section 4oA provided that: " (i) Where any person (a) without sufficient reason publishes any statement. . . that brings any . . . Industrial Court. . into disrepute . . . (he) shall be deemed to commit the offence of contempt. . . ." Lord Guest, giving their Lordships' advice, said that the questions before the Supreme Court were (i) whether the statement made by the appellant at the hearing before the Industrial Court brought the Court into disrepute and (2) if so, whether the statement was made without sufficient reason. The Supreme Court held that the statement was an act constituted to bring the Industrial Court into disrepute. Counsel for the appellant had difficulty in resisting the conclusion that such a finding was warranted. Their Lordships agreed with the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court upon that matter. In regard to the second question, whether the statement was made without sufficient reason, counsel for the appellant argued that, as the appellant acted in good faith and in accordance with what he believed to be his professional duty in bringing to the notice of the court that his client had applied to the Minister of Labour to have the court reconstituted, the statement was made with sufficient reason. It was not and could not be contended that because the appellant was acting on instructions he was entitled to any special privilege. In reading from the typewritten document he accepted respon sibility for its contents. There was really no call for any statement at all on behalf of the union. But whether the appellant's appearance for the union was in order or not, their Lordships considered that there was no justification at all for his statement that an impartial inquiry could not be expected before the Industrial Court. That was the sting in the contempt and it was deliberate and quite unnecessary in the circumstances. Counsel for the appellant argued that it could not be contempt for counsel to allege partiality of a court as this would unduly restrict counsel's arguments on a hearing in certiorari proceedings. But different considerations

Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, gave leave to apply for an order of certiorari to quash a warrant granted by a Bow Street magistrate on February 2 5th, 1963, authorising the police to search for and seize any documents reasonably suspected of having been forged and which might be at the applicants' offices at n, Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn. Mr. Foster said that this was regarded as such an important matter from the point of view of the profession that the Law Society had been consulted and the application was being made with their encouragement. The warrant related to documents concerning a client of the firm. The magistrate had had before him an information sworn by a detective superintendent to the effect that the person concerned had been arrested. It had also been said that there was reasonable cause to believe that forged docu ments might be found in the custody or possession of the firm. The warrant was invalid because the information on which it was issued did not mention any facts which would lead the magistrate to believe that the firm had any forged documents without lawful excuse. The warrant was absolutely general in its terms and covered all documents at 11, Stone Buildings whether they concerned clients of the firm, the firm's own documents or those relating to employees. The warrant was also invalid because it disregarded the privilege of solicitors. The Lord Chief Justice said that the Court would grant leave to apply for an order of certiorari. (Ex Parte Bull and others, The Times, March 29th, 1963.) Contempt by advocate The Privy Council dismissed an appeal by an advocate, from a judgment and decree of the Supreme Court of Ceylon dated May 20th, 1960, whereby he was convicted under section 40 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1950, as amended, of contempt against or in disrespect of the authority of an Industrial Court and fined Rs. 500 or in default of payment ordered to undergo six months rigorous imprison ment. The appellant represented the Petroleum Service Station Workers' Union in a dispute between the union and Mr. P. R. Perera, dealer, Shell Petroleum Station at Minigama, whether Mr. Perera's refusal to employ four named workmen was justified. The rule nisi issued by the Supreme Court on the appellant required him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for having read out in the Industrial Court the following statement:— " In the circumstances the union having felt that this court by its order had indicated that an impartial inquiry could not be had before it has appealed to the Minister to intervene in the matter. The union