Review: The Law of Contempt
| Author | G. J. Borrie,N. V. Lowe |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837303700211 |
| Published date | 01 April 1973 |
| Date | 01 April 1973 |
| Subject Matter | Review |
Reviews
THE
LAW
OF
CONTEMPT
Aresearch project
by
the
Institute
of
Judicial
Administration
in
the
University
of
Birmingham
Butterworths
£12
By G.
J.
Borrie
and
N. V. Lowe
With
the
Phillimore
Report
imminent
(if
not
precisely
pending),
and
the
Appeal
Court
restating
and
to
an
extent
reinterpreting
the
law
(in
the
Thalidomide
case),
the
publication
ofa
new, comprehensive
guide
to
Contempt
is timely.
For
newspaper
editors, to whose problems Professor Barrie
and
Mr. Lowe
particularly
address themselves,
any
moment
would
be
appropriate:
living
with,
and
operating
continuously within, this law,
they
need
no special
occurrence
to
whet
their
appetite.
It
is
not
to
denigrate
the
profession to
which
Ibelong to say
that
much
newspaper
reaction to
Contempt
is
based
upon
myth
rather
than
fact.
At
times editors
halt
at
barriers
that
are
purely
imaginary;
at
others
they
fall
at
fences
they
have
not
seen-----or
to
which
they
blind
themselves in
the
comforting
belief
that
the
law says
what
they
would
like it to say.
In
a field
that
is so confused,
where
even established cases
have
a
limited
value, since (as
the
authors
point
out)
what
amounts
to
prejudice
in
one
case will
not
necessarily
amount
to
prejudice
in
another,
it
is inevitable
that
the
layman
will sometimes misdirect
himself.
One
example
of
(fairly recent) mythology is
the
belief
that
the
risk
of
contempt
ends
with
the
completion
of
a
jury
trial.
This
is
based
partly
on
judicial
statements;
partly,
perhaps,
on a
reluctance
to
bring
cases to
court;
but
principally on
the
inviolability
of
judges,
who
will
not
be deflected from
their
duty
by
any
extraneous
comment.
Yet, as
the
authors
point
out,
there
remains a
danger
for
the
editor
who
allows himself to be lulled
into
a false sense
of
security.
For,
however hopeless
the
attempt,
however
invulnerable
the
judge,
if
a
journalist
sets
out
with
the
intention
of
influencing the
outcome
of
an
appeal,
he is in
contempt.
Here
is
an
example
of
the
great
practical
value
of this work.
Where
the
law
is precise, it is
stated
unambiguously
(with
ample
authorities
researched,
quoted,
footnoted
and
indexed).
Where
doubt
remains-and
the
raison
d'
etre
of
the Phillimore
Committee
is
the
need
to resolve such
doubts-the
alternatives
are
equally
clearly stated.
It
would
be
wrong
to suggest
that
the
book is exclusively concerned
with
the
Press.
It
deals
authoritatively
with
all aspects
of
the
law,
whether
or
not
there
is
any
particular
relevance to newspapers.
Inevitably,
the
final section, setting
out
proposals for clarification
and
reform, is
the
least satisfactory
part
of
the
book-from
an
editor's
point
of
view.
Though
they
address themselves to
the
vexed
problem
of
"imminent"
and
"pending"
proceedings,
their
solution leaves far too
much
room
for
argument
and
doubt.
Who
is
to
decide
at
what
point
of
time
it is
"reasonably
likely"
150
To continue reading
Request your trial