164 / 270
GAZETTE
SEPTEMBER 1980
Book Reviews
Press Law
by Robin Callender-Smith (Sweet & Maxwell,
London, 1978). Paperback. £2.75.
The Preface tells us that "this book was born of a
concern about the general level of legal ignorance among
journalists".
I had occasion to read this book while preparing a
paper for the Society's recent symposium "Freedom and
The Media" (Law Society, 9 February 1980). Although it
is written about English law, for the English journalist, the
Irish journalist (and the 'media man' generally) will find
the book extremely interesting and informative. The Irish
journalist must, however, read it conscious that the law in
the United Kingdom and the law in the Republic of
Ireland differ in a number of respects, particularly the
statutory law.
There are three main parts to the book:
Part 1, headed "General Matters", contains chapters
dealing with (inter alia) defamation (including
comments on the recommendations of the
Faulks Committee on Defamation, 1975), the
Rehabilitation
of
Offenders
Act
1974
(unfortunately, no equivalent here), injurious
falsehoods, contempt
of court
(including
comments on the recommendations of the
Phillimore Committee on Contempt, 1975),
privacy, and the Official Secrets Acts;
Part 2, headed "Courts and Reporting Restrictions",
deals (inter alia) with an outline of the legal
profession, the criminal process, the courts, the
press and juveniles, sentencing and coroner's
courts;
Part 3, headed "Associated
Matters", deals with
parliamentary privilege, copyright, admission to
local authority meetings, disciplinary bodies, the
Theft Act 1968, and the Race Relations Act
1976.
The lengthy chapters on both defamation and
contempt of court would be a very convenient
introduction to the Irish journalist to those important
topics. The style of writing, interspersed with readable
summaries of leading English court decisions, is easy to
comprehend, and quite clearly, the author, Mr. Callender-
Smith (as a practising barrister and as a former fulltime
reporter and examiner for the National Council for the
Training of Journalists), has considerable knowledge of
how the journalist works in practice and what essentially
he should know about the law.
It became clear at the Society's symposium, "Freedom
and The Media" (February 1980) that it is particularly in
the legal areas of defamation and contempt of court that
the Irish journalist feels himself unduly restricted.
However, the law in both these areas does reflect the
conflict between, and the balancing of, the rights of the
individual to his personal integrity and good name and to
a fair trial, on the one hand, and the right of free press on
the other. Particularly in the area of contempt of court,
there is, undoubtedly, a journalistic minefield of
uncertainty and inconsistency. Nonetheless, the reality
might be that if the journalist was more familiar with the
legal principles in both these areas and particularly the
legal defences available, he would feel himself more free to
do his work responsibly and be less inclined to engage in
158
self-censorship arising from lack of legal knowledge. Also,
if the journalist was more informed on the law in those
areas, he would (quite rightly) be less deferential and more
questioning and critical of the lawyer, where legal opinion
is sought in advance of publication of sensitive copy.
Rightly or wrongly, the lawyer is viewed by the journalist
as highly conservative and as someone who, if he has any
doubt about whether something should be published,
would be more inclined to adopt a 'safety first' attitude
and advise against publication; whereas the legally
informed journalist would insist that the lawyer's stance
should be: "what legal recommendations can I make to
ensure that that particular copy is published without legal
risks, with as few changes as possible?"
On the other hand, it would make life easier for the
lawyer who is dealing with the journalist, to know that
the journalist understands the legal principles at issue,
where the lawyer is either vetting copy in advance of
publication and, perhaps after the institution of libel
proceedings against the journalist's newspaper, where a
decision has to be made on whether to defend or settle.
Mr. Callender-Smith's book is to be recommended as a
means of narrowing the divergence between the lawyer
and the journalist as well as informing the journalist of the
actual scope which the law gives him to do his work.
Michael V. O 'Ma hony.
Sale of Goods and Consumer Credit
by A.
P.
Dobson. 2nd
edition (Sweet and Maxwell, London,
1980).
Paperback, £6.85. Cloth, £12.50.
Though university lecturers usually turn up their well-
bred noses at 'Concise College Texts' and other distilled
forms of scholarship, the newcomer to the subject or the
busy practitioner trying to keep up with developments in
the various areas of the law could do much worse than
read Mr. Dobson's text.
The second edition usefully bring together U.K. Sale of
Goods and Consumer Credit Law into one short, but not
cheap volume, (£6.85 paperback). Part Two of the book
deals with "Consumer Credit" i.e. money for the man in
the street. The book gives an interesting summary of the
law in the U.K. but is by and large irrelevant to the reader
in the Irish Republic, until at least the E.E.C. draft
directive on consumer credit brings our law closer to that
of the U.K.
Part One of the text deals with the Sale of Goods and is
useful to the reader in the Irish Republic in the context of
the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980. The
Sale of Goods law enthusiast will have a chart pinned to the
wall of his bathroom which shows at a glance how
generally our law lines up with that of the U.K. and
particularly how our Sale of Goods Act does.
Notably part two of our Sale of Goods and Supply of
Services Act which corresponds to the U.K. Sale of
Goods (Implied Terms) Act, 1973. Part Five of our Act
is similar to the Misrepresentation Act, U.K. 1967.
Section 44 of our Act is equivalent to the U.K.
Unsilicited Goods and Services Act, 1971 and our
Pyramid Selling Act has a parallel in the U.K. Unfair
Trading Terms Act, 1973. Armed with this information
Mr. Dobson's book becomes relevant to the reader in the
Irish Republic if he accepts the obvious drawbacks of a
'concisc text'. The style of the book is lucid and bears the