115 / 736
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