The Gazette 1973

a posting in the Indian Army. He remained in India until 1952, when he returned to England, mainly on account of is father's health. On obtaining employment in England he received a questionnaire from the Inland Revenue and, in reply to one question, stated that he proposed to remain permanently in the United Kingdom. From 1955 he held a British Indian passport and a South African passport. In 1960 Mr. Buswell bought a residence in London, and in 1961 married an Englishwoman who received a large income from overseas. After the marriage they purchásed a property in Sussex and in 1968 they visited South Africa and purchased a property there on which they spent approximately £115,000. Since then they had visited South Africa for three months each year. Mr. Buswell and his wife had an intention to go to South Africa in 1976 to live permanently. Because of the education of their two children and because of Mr. Buswell's elderly mother, who was still living in England, it was not convenient for them to go at an earlier date. Mr. Buswell was assessed to income tax for the years 1961-2 to 1967-68 on the basis that he was domiciled in the United Kingdom. He appealed against the assessment, contending that he was not domiciled in the United Kingdom and accordingly was entitled to have his liability to tax in respect of his overseas income computed in accordance with Section 132 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1952. The special commissioeers upheld the assessment, and Mr. Buswell appealed, submitting that his domicile of origin was South Africa and that he had not acquired a domicile of choice in the United Kingdom. Buswell v. Inland Revenue Commissioners; C.A.; 30/3/1973. Evidence Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Bridge. Judgment delivered on March 9th. A man who paid £14,000 in 1963 to a resident in a scheduled territory was bound to answer a question by the Treasury whether he knew that the payment was made in Borrie (Gordon) and Lowe (Nigel)—The Law of Con- tempt. 8vo; pp. xliv plus 401; London, Butterworth, 1970; £12. This is the first publication of the Institute of Judicial Administration attached to Birmingham University where Professor Borrie is Director; his colleague, Mr. Lowe is a Lecturer in Sheffield. The law of contempt, particularly if not made in the face of the Court, has always given rise to difficulties, and a textbook written by experts such as these authors on this intricate sub- ject is a great boon to practitioners. Even punishment in the face of the Court, as Lord Goddard said in Parashuram (1945) AC, should be used sparingly and only in serious cases; its usefulness depends upon the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised; an example was when a Judge was personally assaulted by a criminal in the Court of Appeal in London a month ago. In general, a publication which has the tendency to prejudice a fair trial will amount to contempt; but this will depend on the facts of the case. The most serious case in England was R. v. Bolam ex parte Haigh (1949) where the editor of the Daily Mirror was impris- oned, and the proprietors were heavily fined for de- scribing the accused as a vampire. In R. v. Kray (1969) the accused had been found guilty in one trial and now faced fresh charges. Lawton J . said that fair and accur- ate reports of the previous trial could be made, but this did not involve further discreditable allegations. BOOK REVIEWS

association with the acquisition of property in France by his brother-in-law and sister, who had been convicted in 1971 of making a payment of £3,000 to a person resident in the scheduled territories, contrary to Section 7 (1) (A) of the Exchange Control Act, 1947, and of failing to offer 138,300 French francs (the proceeds of the £14,000) to an authorised dealer, contrary to Section 2 (1) of the Act. He was also bound to answer the question whether he knew of the existence of the property in France and that his sister had paid the £3,000 for repairs to it. The Court so held when deciding that the Chief Metro- politan Magistrate (Sir Frank Milton) was wrong to dismiss an information against T. M. Ellis, of Grosvenor Street, Lon- don, alleging that he had refused to give information required by the Treasury for the purpose of securing compliance with or detecting evasion of the 1947 Act, contrary to paragraph 1 (1) of Part I and paragraph 1 (1) of Part II of the Fifth Schedule to the Act. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Ellis; 13/3/1973. Family Before Mr. Justice Bagnall. Judgment delivered March 5th. When considering financial provision for a wife after disso- lution of marriage it would not be just to have regard to the conduct of the parties unless there was substantial disparity between them. Financial support for a wife would only be reduced if it could be shown that she had wilfully persisted in a course of conduct calculated to destroy a marriage in circum- stances where the other party was substantially blameless. Those conditions would be satisfied in few cases. Mr. Justice Bagnall so said in giving judgment in open court after a hearing in chambers an application for financial provision by Mrs. A. P. Harnett, 43, a teacher, of Aldersham, Hertfordshire. Her husband, Mr. M. Harnett, 43, salesman, of Butts Hill Road, Woodley, Berkshire, had opposed the appli- cation. Harnett v. Harnett; 6/3/1973. Civil proceedings should also be conducted free from prejudice and the press are entitled to make fair com- ments. The main test is publication which tends to prevent the Court from hearing all the evidence : in Ireland, the Press will tend to be protected if it does not exaggerate the facts, and if it does not infringe the statutory restrictions, which permit certain actions to be tried in camera. It is often difficult to determine whether a public action which is likely to prejudice a fair criminal trial can only amount to contempt if proceedings are pend- ing or imminent, but R. v. Clarke ex parte Crippen (1910) dearly derided tha': contcmpt can be committed at any tirae afler r n arrest resulting from a warrant has been made; as against this, the Australian case of James v. Robinson (1963) acquitted the defendant newspaper of contempt on the ground that the accused murderer in Perth had not been arrested. In civil proceedings, the action is pending when the proceedings have been issued. As regards actions criticising Courts amounting to contempt Lord Russell had said in R. v. Gray (1900) that any writing published calculated to bring a Court into contempt or to lower its authority is a contempt; while in 1968 the Court of Appeal stated in relation to a criticism by the present Lord Chancellor that "the authority and reputation of our Courts are not so frail that their judgment had to be shielded from criti- cism". The criticism of O'Byrne J's conduct of a case in

124