The Gazette 1967/71

2. A separate fine will not necessarily be imposed on the editor of a newspaper which has been punished for contempt. Pending the trial of a defendant upon a charge under the Race Relations Act 1965 a newspaper published a photograph of him with a caption saying that he had taken to politics after an un- edifying career as brothel-keeper, procurer and property racketeer. It was admitted that this amounted to a serious contempt although there was not intention to influence the outcome of the trial, and a barrister consulted by the newspaper had failed to warn it that publication would amount to a contempt. Held, (1) that the publishers would be fined £5,000; but (2) that the editor who had not seen the offending passage before publication and who had devised a system to prevent such occurances though responsible was not culpable and so would not suffer any penalty. (R. v Thompson Newspapers ex. p. Att. Gen. [1968] 1 W.L.R.). Duty of Minister to Investigate Price Dispute : The House of Lords, by a majority, held that an order of mandamus should issue to the Minis ter of Agriculture requiring him to consider a complaint by a minority of milk producers against the working of the Milk Marketing Board Scheme and to refer the complaint to the com mittee of investigation, in exercise of the dis- cret'on conferred on him by section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1956. Their Lordships, Lord Morris dissenting, al lowed an appeal by Mr. George Padfield and two other office bearers of the board's South Eastern regional committee from the decision of the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Diplock and Lord Justice Russell, the Master of the Rolls dissenting) on July 27, 1966 and restored the order of the. Queen's Bench Division requiring the Minister to consider the complaint according to law. Lord Upjohn in delivering a concurring judg ment said that every reason relied on by the Minister for refusing a reference showed that he had failed to understand the object and scope of section 19 and his functions and duties thereunder. The fear of parliamentary trouble if an inquiry were ordered, and its possible results, was alone sufficient to vitiate the Minister's decision which could never validly turn on purely political considerations. He nust be prepared to face the music in Parliament if statute had cast on him an obligation in the proper exercise of a discretion conferred on him

to order a reference to the Committee. (Padfield and Others v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and others. (Times newspaper

February 15th 1968). Judgments criticised :

An ex parte application was made to the Court of Appeal to declare an article published in Punch by Mr. Quintin Hogg, Q.C., M.P. as contempt of Court. The Master of the Rolls in the course of delivering the judgment to the Court stated that the article was certainly critical of the Court. But in so far as it referred to the Court of Appeal it was admittedly erroneous. Nevertheless it was a very different matter to say that it was con tempt of Court. The Court was asked to exercise its jurisdiction as a means of upholding its own dignity; that must rest on surer foundations. Nor would the Court use it to suppress those who spoke against it. The Court did not fear or resent criticism, for there was something far more im portant at stake. It was no less than freedom of speech itself, the right of any man in Parliament or out of it, in the press or in broadcast to make fair comment even out-spoken comment, on mat ters of public interest. Those who commented could deal faithfully with all that was done in a Court of Justice. They could say that the Courts were mistaken and their decisions erroneous, whether subject to appeal or not. All that the Courts would ask was that those who criticized them would remember that from the nature of their office the Courts could not reply to their criticism. They could not enter into public controversy still less into political con troversy. They had to rely on their conduct itself to be its own vindication. Exposed as they were to the winds of criticism, nothing said by any person, nothing written by any pen, would deter the Courts from doing what they believed was right and from saying what the occasion required, provided it was pertinant to the matter in hand. Silence was not an option when things were ill done. Regina v Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ex Parte Blackburn (The Times newspaper Feb. 27th 1968). CORRESPONDENCE INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION My dear Sir, I am writing as Treasurer df the International Bar Association to seek your help for a Com mittee which the Council of the Association has set up to study the subject of "Simplification of 95