The Gazette 1973

Finance Acts. Every year, for the past few years he has published this Outlines of Irish Taxation which is a most useful summary of Irish income tax. This booklet is invaluable to the practitioner who wishes to get a quick reply on points of taxation law without delving deeply into the Finance Acts. Annual Survey of Commonwealth Law. 1972. Prepared under the auspices of the Faculty of Law in the Univer- sity of Oxford and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, edited by Professor H. W. R. Wade and Harold Brown; 8vo; pp. Ixxxvi, 705; Lon- don, Butterworths, 1973; £15.50. The pattern of this annual survey is now well estab- lished, and the general editors have got experts to write on each of the twenty-one subjects covered : Funda- mental Rights (Dr. Yardley); Criminal Law (Mr. Hey- don); Trusts (Mr. Davies); Labour Law (Paul O'Hig- gins); International Law (Dr. Brownlie); etc. As in pre- vious years all the most important cases on a particular subject, whether in Britain, Ireland, or the Common- wealth are mentioned at least in a footnote. In the result this is the most comprehensive survey, and the authority and erudition of each contributor is unques- tionable. There is a useful paragraph on the Livestock Marts Act case, but it seems strange that, despite the

Constitution, Ireland is listed in the Index as "Eire". Those who wish to follow the trend of judicial deci- sions in any of the subjects covered by the experts could not do better than to study it in this massive volume. Cross (Rupert) and Asterley Jones (P.) —Cases on Criminal Law. Fifth edition; 8vo; pp. xxxiv, 391; London, Butterworth, 1973; £2.60 (paperback). The merits of the fourth edition of this book were reviewed in the July-August 1973 Gazette, at page 169. In this edition, thirty r six new cases have been inserted, and thirty-one old cases deleted, particularly relating to reason, criminal libel and perjury. Amongst the inclusions are (1) Mohan v R. (1967) 2 All E.R. 58, where it was held that two persons may be convicted of aiding and abetting each other; (2) R. v Mclnnes (1971) 3 All E.R. 295, relating to self-defence, manslaughter and murder; (3) Phillips v R. (1969) 2 A.C. 130, relat- ing to what the jury must consider when provocation is pleaded in answer to a charge of murder; and (4) Cray v Barr (1971) 2 All E.R. 949, where it was held that mens rea was necessary in the case of all forms of manslaughter. This new edition has been edited with the care and excellence we can expect from these learned authors of our profession. the newsworthiness of a case has disappeared too. Contempt of Court Another point is that the law of contempt of court is vague : even if it were crystal clear its exercise is still at the discretion of the judges concerned who, naturally, differ as any human beings differ. To illustrate the general vagueness of this field of law the recent House of Lords decisions in the Sunday Times case is a good example. It now appears that in England fair and temperate pressure on a party in litigation to settle out of court would not be contempt of court. If this is true, it is a big change in the law : again, would this ruling be followed in this country? The House of Lords decisions are read here as persuasive but not binding authorities. There are a number of Irish cases where editors have been convicted of contempt for publishing abusive material about the courts. The distinction here should be clear enough. Equally, of course, anything calculated to sway the minds of a potential juror cannot be used. But once a judgment has been given and the time for appeal is passed there is room for assessment, and adverse criticism, of the decision. The Irish Times (30 July 1973)

Press not critical enough-Judge The retiring President of the Circuit Court, Mr. Justice Barra O Briain, said last Friday—his final appearance on the Bench in Limerick—that generally speaking the press in Ireland had been far too timid and not nearly critical enough in its judgment on the courts of the country.

Insofar as this comment relates to critical assessment of the effects of judgments, it is probably true that there is more room for editorial appraisement than has been generally used. But this is obviously an area where editors must walk warily. An article designed to show significant differences in sentencing policy as between judges would not be in contempt of court—but the writer would need to know all relevant information, including the accused's record as read to the sentencing judge, family circumstances, etc. Comment based on partial information would be very risky indeed. There is certainly room for comment on the effects of judgments in any branch of the law but with one proviso : as the law stands such comment should wait until the time for appealing the decision has passed, otherwise any comment might be seen as pre-judging the issues on appeal and hence be in contempt of the appeal court. Often once the appeal time has elapsed,

216