REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
| Published date | 01 November 1969 |
| Date | 01 November 1969 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1969.tb01244.x |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
THE
LAW
OF
CONTEMPT
AS
IT
AFFECTS TRIBUNALS
OF
INQUIRY
ON
the evening
of
the same day that the Aberfan disaster occurred
(October
21, 1966),
the Prime Minister announced that there would
be
“
a
most high level independent inquiry.” Three days later, the
Secretary
of
State
for
Wales informed the House
of
Commons that,
following discussions with Edmund Davies
L.J.,
Parliament would
be asked for the inquiry
to
be conducted under the Tribunals of
Inquiry (Evidence) Act
1921.
The necessary resolutions
to
set
up the Tribunal were passed by Parliament
on
October
25,
but
on
the previous evening there was an interview
on
B.B.C. television
with someone who was described as knowing more about the
behaviour and nature of coal-tips than anyone.
This
man was cross-
examined by the interviewer as
to
the danger of coal-tips unless
regularly inspected. Later statements by the Attorney-General and
by the Prime Minister that interviews and comments about the
disaster were undesirable and might amount to contempt of the Tri-
bunal were sharply challenged in Parliament and the Press, and a
Press Council statement published
in
1967
called for a Committee
to
inquire
into
the law
of
cmtemDt
in
relation to the
1921
Act.
An
Interdepartmental Committee under Lord Justice Salmon’s
chairmanship appointed the following year has now reported.
The only judgments ever given in England
or
Scotland
con-
cerning the application
of
the law of contempt
to
Tribunals of
Inquiry arose out of the Vassal1 TribunaI when certain journalists
refused
to
reveal the sources
of
their informatioms The Royal
Commission
on
Tribunals of Inquiry
1966
made recommendations
relating to this type of contempt,
i.e.,
contempt in the face
of
the
Tribunal. The Salmon Committee was concerned only with
con-
tempt arising from outside interference with the proceedings of
a
Tribunal of Inquiry. The Committee had
no
doubt that section
1
(2)
(c)
of
the
1921
Act makes anything which would have been
contempt
if
done in relation to
a
court of law punishable as
con-
tempt
if
done in relation
to
a
Tribunal of Inquiry-it is not restricted
to
contempt in the face
of
the Tribunal. But
should
outside
interference with Tribunal
proceedings
be treated as contempt
?
Should the law
of
contempt apply to Tribunals
of
Inquiry
?
The
Press
Council in its
1967
statement had ‘argued that there
1
Report
of
Interdepartmental Cummi&e (Cmnd.
4078).
2
The
Aberfan
Inquiry
and Contempt
of
Court-Prew
Council
Booklet
No.
1.
J
Att.-Gen.
v.
Clough
[1963]
1
All
E.R.
420;
Att.-Gen.
v.
Mulholrand and
4
Cmnd.
3121.
6’74
Foster
[1963]
1
Al.1
E.R.
767.
To continue reading
Request your trial