The King against Clement
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1821 |
| Date | 28 January 1821 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 918
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
For Previous proceedings, see 11 Price, 68.
the king against clement. Monday, January 28th, 1821. A Court of General Gaol Delivery has the power to make an order to prohibit the publication of the proceedings pending a trial likely to continue for several successive days, and to punish disobedience to such order by fine. Service of an order of such Court, calling upon the editor of a newspaper " to answer for contemptuously publishing such proceedings," at the office at which the newspaper was published, is good service within the 38 G. 3, c. 78, s. 12; and the editor not having appeared, the fine was held to be properly imposed upon him in his absence. [For previous proceedings, see 11 Price, 68.] A rule nisi had been obtained in last Trinity term, calling upon the justices of the delivery of the gaol of Newgate, to shew cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue, directed to them, to remove into this Court all orders made at the last April Session of Gaol Delivery holden for the county of Middlesex, by adjournment, at Justice-Hall in the Old Bailey, in the suburbs of the City of London, concerning William Innell Clement; [219] and also the order contrary to which, it was stated in and by a certain other order made by the said justices, at the delivery of the said gaol of Newgate, holden for the county of Middlesex, by adjournment, at Justice-Hall aforesaid, on Tuesday the 25th day of April last, that the said William Innell Clement did print and publish the trials of Arthur Thistlewood and James Ings for high treason. The following facts were disclosed in the affidavits in support of the rule. On Monday the 17th day of April, 1820, Arthur Thistlewood was put upon his trial at the Old Bailey, upon an indictment for high treason ; and Lord Chief Justice Abbott, then being one of the justices before whom Thistlewood was tried, before the commencement of the trial, stated publicly, that as there were several persons charged with the offence of high treason by the same indictment, whose trials were likely to be taken one after another, he thought it necessary strictly to prohibit the publishing of any proceedings of that or any other day, until the whole trial should be brought to a conclusion; and that it was expected that all persons would attend to that admonition. The trial of Thistlewood was concluded on Wednesday the 19th of April, and James Ings was afterwards tried for and convicted of the same offence, on Saturday the 22d of April. On the Sunday following, the defendant published, in the Observer newspaper, a fair, true, and impartial account of the proceedings and evidence publicly had and produced in open Court, on the trials of Thistlewood and Ings. The defendant's affidavit further stated, that on Tuesday the 25th April he left London, and after visiting several places in the county of Kent, arrived at Feversham on Friday the 28th April; and that on the following day [220] he saw in a newspaper an account of the sentences passed on the prisoners; and that he had been ordered by the Court to pay a fine of 5001., for a contempt of Court, in printing and publishing the account of the said trials. He positively swore, that this was the first intimation he had had of any steps having been taken against him for the alleged offence. He then immediately left Feversham, and arrived in London on Saturday, the 29th April, and was then informed, that on Wednesday the 26th day of April, the following order had been served at his office in the Strand: " On the motion of Mr. Attorney-General, and on reading the affidavits therein mentioned, it is ordered, that William Innell Clement, the printer, publisher, and proprietor of a certain newspaper called the -Observer, do attend this Court on Friday, next, the 28th instant, at the hour of nine in the morning, precisely, to answer for unlawfully and contemptuously printing and publishing in the said newspaper the trials of Arthur Thistlewood and James Ings for high treason, pending the proceedings against John Thomas Brunt, and others, who were included in the same indictment with the said Arthur Thistlewood and James Ings, for the same high treasons, contrary to the order of this Court, and to the obstruction of public justice." The Attorney and Solicitor-General, Gurney, and Littledale, now shewed cause. 'The Court will not grant a certiorari, to remove the proceedings of an Inferior Court, 4B. &ALD.221. THE KING V. CLEMENT 919 unless there appears to have been some irregularity or impropriety in the proceedings of that Court. In his case the proceedings were perfectly regular and proper. For the Court of General Gaol Delivery had au-[221]-thority to make the original order, prohibiting the publication of the proceedings. That is established by all the precedents applicable to this subject. In The King v. Watson, which was an indictment for high treason, tried in this Court in Trinity term 1817, a similar order was made; and upon a complaint by the counsel for the prisoner, that that order had been disobeyed by the editor of a newspaper, the Court asked the prisoner's counsel, whether he made any application to the Court upon the subject, and upon his answering in the negative, the Court stated, that it was then unnecessary for them to do any thing; but no doubt was intimated as to their power of enforcing the order. And in The King v. Brandreth and Others, which was an indictment for high treason, tried before a special commission at Derby, in 1817, there was a similar order made by the Court. That order was infringed, and the counsel for the prisoner mentioned the subject to the Court, but declined making any application to the Court to punish the editor of the newspaper, and, of course, the matter dropped. Besides, a publication, the effect of which is likely to prevent or obstruct the course of public justice, has always been held to be a contempt of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
La Presse inc. v. Quebec, 2023 SCC 22
...2 Atk. 469, 26 E.R. 683; R. v. Jansen, [1976] 4 W.W.R. 277; Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417; R. v. Clement (1821), 4 B. & Ald. 218, 106 E.R. 918; Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631; R. v. Haevischer, 2023 SCC 11; R. v. D......
-
Siemer v The Solicitor-General
...per Lord Russell, and 471–472 per Lord Scarman; and Independent Publishing, above n 10, at [67]–[68]. 65 R v Clement (1821) 4 B & Ald 218, 106 ER 918 (KB); and In Re Clement (1822) 11 Price 68, 147 ER 404 66 Independent Publishing, above n 10, at [65], referring to the criticism of R v Clem......
-
Irish Times Ltd v Ireland
... ... 1. In re R. Ltd. [1989] I.R. 126; [1989] I.L.R.M. 757. R. v. Clement [1821] 4 B & Ald 218. R. v. Gray (1865) 10 Cox C.C. 184. R. v ... By notice of appeal lodged on the 24th February, 1997, the applicants appealed against the judgment and order of the High Court and the respondents appealed against such portion of the ... On a rule being obtained to set it aside, the Court of King's Bench held that the order of Abbott C.J. was perfectly good, because all the trials could be ... ...
-
Lake, Bar. v King, Ar
...during the parti cular trial, or during several trials on the same subject-matter, and may punish a disobedience to such order by fine. 4 B. & A. 218, The King v. Clement. Although a member of Parliament is privileged in his place in the House of Commons, yet if he publish his speech, and i......
-
Sovereign Indignity? Values, Borders and the Internet: a Case Study
...and ensure justice . . ."). Church of Scientology of Toronto, in turn, drew its authority from two old English cases, R. v. Clement, 106 E.R. 918 (K.B. 1821), and R. v. W.I. Clement, 147 E.R. 404 (Ex. D. 1822). Church of Scientology of Toronto, 27 C.C.C.3d at 206-9. Justice Kovacs also cite......
-
OPEN JUSTICE, 'BACK-TO-BACK' TRIALS AND JUROR PREJUDICE: EXAMINING THE SUPPRESSION ORDER IN THE TRIAL OF GEORGE PELL.
...at 343 [28], Rothman J agreeing at 345 [37]); Hogan (n 44) 531 [21] (French CJ). (61) See, eg, R v Clement (1821) 4 B & Ald 218; 106 ER 918, 922 (Bayley J), cited in Scott (n 40) 438 (Viscount Haldane LC), 453 (Lord Atkinson); R v Horsham Justices; Ex parte Farquharson [1982] 1 QB 762, ......
-
Privy Council
...ofjustice must be both necessary and proportionate (see [59]).The case upon which discussion centred was R vClement (1821) 4 B &Ald 218; 106 ER 918. Those involved in the notorious Cato StreetConspiracy of 1820 had been indicted for high treason. Each had electedto be tried separately and, ......