125 / 262
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.
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
BOOK REVIEWS
124