the citizen is not wrongfully encroached upon by requiring the compulsory removal of a sanitary nuisance or by restricting the sale of poison, so the freedom of the press is not unjustly infringed by compulsory suppression of polluting details elaborated for purposes of profit.

5. The Director of Public Prosecutions considered that Bodkin, 211. this Bill was quite in the right direction, adding that when once it is laid down that such things shall not be published, then all newspapers are put upon a similar level. The Newspaper Proprietors' Association, in a letter to Your Committee, wrote See that they saw no difficulty in giving effect to the provisions of Appendix. the Bill as drawn, and that their Council could suggest no alternative method which would be an improvement on that proposed. It is within the knowledge of Your Committee that Peaker, 754. eminent foreigners have expressed surprise that such latitude is See 940. granted to the press in Great Britain on this subject, and that Royal some publications have come down to a level which is not per- Commn. mitted on the Continent. Evidence has also been adduced to Your Committee that injury is done to British reputation, both in India and in the East, by reproductions in the vernacular Peaker, press of reports of divorce cases in Great Britain as typical of 759, 760. British life. From this and other evidence Your Committee have formed the opinion that the Bill is framed on the right lines, and they believe that a large portion of the press would welcome it as such.

on Divorce, 1912, p. 148.

158, seq. Duke, 82.

Bodkin,

6. We desire next to examine its terms more precisely, with a view to its extension, limitation or variation. It is simplest, perhaps, to begin with Clause 1, sub-section (1) (b) of the original Bill, referring to physiological details, etc., which may be roughly described as a general definition of indecency, slightly broader than the hitherto generally accepted test laid down by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn in Reg. v. Hicklin, in 1868. Sir Henry Duke approved of its wording as getting to the root Bodkin, of the matter. Sir A. Bodkin indicated one or two small and useful amendments. There was very general unanimity in favour of extending this sub-section to cover the publication of reports 190-199. of all judicial proceedings, and that it ought not to be confined Bodkin, 205. (as it is by the next three lines of the Bill) to proceedings for 220; Duke, divorce, nullity, and judicial separation only. Besides these which Lidgett, 370; are mentioned in the Bill, it was considered that there were other Grahamclasses of cases to the reports of which it was very desirable that Campbell, restriction should also be applied. By this means a possible Mellor, 544; omission in the Bill would be incidentally rectified, inasmuch etc. as proceedings on the prosecution of a person for publishing Duke, 18. indecent matter would themselves become subject to restriction. It was affirmed to us that to enact this sub-section and apply it to all judicial proceedings is merely declaratory of the present Humelaw, and the witness representing the Newspaper Society (Pro- Williams, vincial Press), contended that the existing law was sufficient. 974.

(10881)

A 3

5; Scott

328;

700; Knapp

Cf. Duke,

134. Royal

Your Committee are of opinion that though the sub-section may contain little more than what is law to-day, it is material and effective, especially in conjunction with an alteration in relation to summary procedure to be mentioned later (paragraph 10), and it has the advantage of giving more or less specific instructions to a news editor what is to be blue-pencilled out. It would more conveniently stand first-in front of (a)-in the original Bill. We have passed it in the following form and have amended the title of the Bill accordingly :

"It shall not be lawful to print, circulate, or publish, or cause or procure to be printed, circulated, or published, (a) in relation to any judicial proceedings, any indecent matter or medical, surgical or physiological details, being matter or details the publication of which would be calculated to injure public morals or otherwise be to the public mischief."

7. This sub-section. however, does not by itself completely grapple with the wide publication of a "mass of details, more suggestive than actually indecent," which was gravely commented on by the Royal Commission on Divorce in 1912. We have, therefore, given anxious consideration to the sub-section of the original Bill (Cl. 1 (1) (a)) which limits the publication of 1912, p. 145. reports of divorce, nullity and judicial separation cases (not other cases) to specified parts of the proceedings only.

Commn. on
Divorce,

HumeWilliams, 655.

Mellor, 494, 564.

8. The evidence as to putting any special restriction on reports of these divorce and similar cases, in addition to the general restriction against indecency in all cases imposed by the sub-section just quoted above (paragraph 6), has been diverse. Sir E. Hume-Williams opposed any singling out of divorce court reports for special treatment, holding that it would be quite a mistake thus to destroy what he considered the deterrent of publication. Sir John Mellor made the point that curtailment of divorce reports would to a considerable extent interfere with his obtaining information necessary for intervening in his official capacity as King's Proctor, as people with local knowledge would be less likely to communicate with him; but he supplied figures which showed that the percentage of such interventions out of the Bodkin, 253. total number of cases is quite a small one. Sir Archibald Bodkin, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that he thought the names of the parties, the grounds on which the proceedings were brought, the particulars of any legal argument, and the finding of the jury (if any) and judgment of the Court, gave the public quite sufficient information. The Earl of Desart, who has the double qualification of being a former Director of Public Prosecutions and a former King's Proctor, stated in a debate in the House of Lords on April 24th last, that the interests of public justice would be met by the publication of the names of the parties, the charges made, the result, and the report of any discussion on a point of law which arose during the proceedings.

Press witnesses did not always see eye to eye, though the main Peaker, 766, trend of Press opinion appears to be in favour of some specific 908; see 744; reasonable regulation of the character contained in the Bill. General and educational testimony supports restriction-the more the objectionable news is supplied, it was urged by the Bishop of London, the more a demand is created for it. The Head- Bp. of master of Charterhouse, who was a witness as Chairman of the 439, 444, Headmasters' Conference, had considered the possibility of 450; limiting newspapers bought by schoolboys, but had come to the 1118, 1237, conclusion that it would merely call attention to the undesirable 1241.

ones.

London,

Fletcher,

692.

in the

9. Your Committee are opposed to hearing cases in camerâ as contrary to British sentiment, unless in very exceptional circumstances where they are now allowed. But we do not agree with the contention that there is no via media between Humehearings in camera and the right to publish full reports of the Williams, divorce class of cases according to existing law. At any rate, a middle course should be tried, particularly as we cannot insist too strongly upon the fact that it is often the contaminating character of the whole report rather than any individual phrase in it which is mischievous. Sir Henry Duke stigmatised the indiscriminate Duke, 59, 54, reporting of details of divorce cases as not only a monstrous and passim abuse, but a criminal offence. We respectfully consider his evidence. language is not exaggerated, and it was endorsed by other Bodkin, evidence. A middle course such as we are seeking as a remedy, 214, etc. is to be found in the proposals of the Bill with certain amendments. These we have made, and in so doing we have endeavoured to be guided by the principle of allowing the maximum of publication consistent with the adequate safeguarding of public morality. We would especially call attention to these amendments which enlarge the matter allowed to be published, by including the addresses and descriptions as well as the names of the parties, and the judge's summing up (if any) or his observations in giving judgment. We have also added a fuller definition of what is exactly meant by the grounds on which the proceedings are brought. The sub-section therefore now stands as follows:

'(b) in relation to any judicial proceedings for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage or for judicial separation, or proceedings before a court of summary jurisdiction in which an order for judicial separation is made or applied for, any particulars other than the following that is to say :-(i) the names, addresses and description of the parties and witnesses; (ii) the grounds on which the proceedings are brought and resisted as set forth in the petition, and answer and particulars thereof; (iii) submissions on any point of law arising in the course of the proceedings, and the decision of the court thereon; (iv) the summing-up of the judge and the finding of the jury (if any) and the judgment of the court and observations made by the judge. in giving judgment.

(10881)

A 4

Bodkin, 180;

HumeWilliams, 663.

Provided that nothing in this part of this sub-section shall be held to permit the publication of anything contrary to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this sub-section."

In view of these amendments we have not thought it necessary to forbid publication of a report of a case or proceeding until after it is finished, which is a possible restriction we have had under careful consideration.

10. The third question raised in paragraph 1, what legal Duke, 23, 24, procedure is most suitable?-can be answered briefly. All the 108, 152; legal authorities who gave evidence before us on the point, Mellor, 507-8 advised summary procedure before magistrates as the most effective, with the ordinary right of appeal to Quarter Sessions and a jury. Procedure by indictment is cumbersome in this Bodkin, 285. Connection, as delays and difficulties arise in the prosecution on indictment of a limited company, into which most newspapers have formed themselves; and we have therefore omitted it from the Bill. We concur that everybody who has a conscious part in the publication should be exposed to a penalty, and that Bodkin, 313. the penalty on summary conviction should be increased to five hundred pounds.

Duke, 98;

11. Your Committee approve of Clause 1, sub-section (4), regarding official law reports and notices, and publications of a technical or professional character.

12. Your Committee wish to make one or two concluding remarks. They venture to believe that their amendment to extend the indecency definition clause, as to physiological details and the like if it may so be described for want of a better termto all judicial proceedings may be generally acceptable, even though it probably strengthens but slightly the existing law. In conjunction with the use of summary procedure, they think the change would be beneficial. They are well aware that the question of limiting the reports of divorce, nullity and judicial separation cases (not other cases) to specified parts only of the proceedings is one upon which an academic essay might be written, but they have arrived at the conclusions in this Report for the following reasons. By including in the parts of the proceedings that may be published the judge's summing-up (if any) or observations on giving judgment, and the minor amendments, it seems to them that the importance of publicity is given due and sufficient weight, and that by publication of a judge's summing-up or observations an innocent party would have the means of freeing himself or herself from blame. In the next place, the doctrine of the freedom of the press can be overstrained; there is a distinction between liberty and licence. See Knapp, Nor is it convincing to argue that no action is necessary because recent agitation has re-acted upon the press very properly. There is no guarantee that in the future, some portion of the press may not revert to their former practices; indications of such

947.

reversion are not totally absent, though they are not prominent now. If, as we do not doubt, it is often the cumulative effect See Knapp, of evidence and statements, any of which would not be liable 1023-1027, 1048, also under the present law as being obscene, which do the mischief, 1076-1080. the obvious remedy is to limit the publication of evidence and statements. The pernicious transformation of sordid stories. into epics for profit cannot really be restrained in any other way. The flaunting of immorality before readers of all ages and positions must be injurious to public morals, and making light of such conduct challenges the whole structure of family life on which society is founded. The Bill puts all newspapers on the same basis, and does not close the door to adequate information about proceedings in the divorce court. If it be maintained that limiting publication hampers the chances of justice, the whole matter becomes a question of balancing the advantage of unrestricted publication to secure justice as against the disadvantage of publication in lowering the standard of national character. Your Committee think that if a choice has to be made, the high standard of national character must be chosen.