136 / 250
GAZETTE
JULY/AUGUST 1982
to the public or be broadcast except as authorised by a
direction given in pursuance of the section.
The section also provides that a person, against whom a
complainant may be expected to give evidence at a trial,
may apply to a Judge for a direction which would have the
effect of lifting the restriction where it is required for the
purpose of inducing persons to come forward who are
likely to be needed as witnesses and the conduct of the
defence is likely to be adversely affected if the direction is
not given.
The section also empowers a Judge to lift the restriction
where the effect would impose substantial and
unreasonable restriction on the reporting of proceedings at
the trial and that it is in the public interest to remove or
relax the restriction — so much of the restriction as is
specified in the direction shall be lifted.
Section 8 provides that after a person is charged with a
rape offence no matter likely to leadmembers of the public
to identify him as the person against whom the charge is
made shall be published in a written publication available
to the public or be broadcast except
(a) as authorised by a direction given by the court or
(b) after he has been convicted of the offence
The section makes provision for the giving of a direction
lifting the restriction in somewhat similar circumstances
as in the case of a complainant.
It is to be noted that while there is no time limit on the
duration of the restriction in the case of a complainant the
restriction in the case of a person charged ceases after he
has been convicted of the offence.
Defamation
(a) Newspaper reports of Court Proceedings.
Section 18( 1) of the Defamation Act 1961 provides as
follows:
'A fair and accurate report published in any
newspaper or broadcast by means of wireless
telegraphy as part of any programme or service
provided by means of a broadcasting station within
the State or in Northern Ireland of proceedings
publicly heard before any court established by law
and exercising judicial authority within the State or
in Northern Ireland shall, if published or broadcast
contemporaneously with such proceedings, be
privileged.'
Section 18(2) provides that nothing in subsection 1
shall authorise the publication or broadcasting of any
blasphemous or obscene matter.
The report need not be a verbatim report provided it is
fair and accurate. The privilege attaching to such reports
once they are made contemporaneously with such
proceedings is regarded as being what is known as
absolute privilege and accordingly no action will lie for
defamatory statements contained in such a report even
though the proprietor or editor of the newspaper published
the report with actual malice towards the person defamed
in the report.
(b) Newspaper comment on Court Proceedings
Privilege attaches also to newspaper comment by way
of letters to the Editor or otherwise on Court proceedings
but the privilege in such instances is qualified privilege.
The due administration ofjustice is undoubtedly a matter
of public interest and therefore fair matter for public
comment. In such cases it is of course important that what
is published is comment or opinion as opposed to fact and
that the comment is fair in the sense of being honest. It is
important that the purpose of making the comment is the
public interest rather than malice or ill will towards a
particular person. The comment should not be made until
after the trial is over. It would also be important to ensure
that the comment would not extend to what might amount
to contempt of Court. •
If in doubt — Notify
(Continued from P. 121)
practice elsewhere as a principal — either alone or in
another partnership — may find serious restrictions in
cover imposed on him by his insurers. Such restrictions
could include, at best, delay in obtaining cover; more
serious would be an exclusion of retro-active cover in
respect of his period with his former firm; the imposition of
especially onerous conditions or rates ofpremium, or even
a total refusal to accept the risk. He may also find himself,
long after he has commenced practice as a principal in his
ownright, named as a defendant in negligence proceedings
against his former firm. If he is not protected by a
comprehensive and effective indemnity from that firm, the
potential consequences are obvious. If he is protected by
an indemnity, he is still faced, at least, with the very
considerable embarrassment and worry — and even
innuendo — which must inevitably result from defending
an action for professional negligence, even though he may
have had nothing whatever to do with the case which gave
rise to the claim. He may even be faced with the appalling
discovery that the firm has maintained no, or insufficient,
professional indemnity insurance cover and that the
principal or principals cannot meet the liability.
Among the various conclusions to be drawn from a
consideration of this problem, several are of such
fundamental importance that they merit restatement. The
first is that, at the first faint whiff of a claim on foot of a
professional indemnity policy, the insurer should be
notified. The second, andmore general, conclusion is that
no practitioner should either seek or accept a non-
proprietorial "partnership" position without considering
very carefully the consequences of such a step upon his
future career. Thirdly, notwithstanding the most fervent
verbal assurances of protection against all that might
befall, no such non-proprietorial status should ever be
accepted without ensuring that the firm maintains at all
times an adequate level of professional indemnity
insurance cover and without procuring a comprehensive
and continuing indemnity from the principal or principals
of the firm involved. •
127