HC Deb 16 November 1888 vol 330 cc1388-90
MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he intends to take any, and what, action in reference to the alleged unjust treatment of Mr. de Souza by the Judges of British Guiana?

MR. BERNARD COLERIDGE (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

also asked the hon. Gentleman, Whether he will obtain a full official Report of all the circumstances connected with the case of Mr. de Souza, lately sentenced to six months' imprisonment for contempt of court in British Guiana, and of the expressions used by Chief Justice Chalmers in passing the sentence.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham)

(who replied) said, in a letter received at the Colonial Office on the 12th instant, Mr. de Souza has notified that he intends to prefer charges of misconduct against the Chief Justice and the other Judges of British Guiana; but that he had been prevented from having those charges ready for transmission by the mail then leaving. On the receipt of the charges Her Majesty's Government will consider what action should be taken; and if they are not accompanied by a full Report will call for such further Report as may be necessary.

MR. BERNARD COLERIDGE (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. de Souza, a coloured barrister, practising in British Guiana, has been sentenced, without appeal, to fine and imprisonment, and to come up for judgment when called upon within 12 months, for contempt of Court, in respect of a matter not pending before the Court; and, whether there is any authority or precedent for punishment for contempt in respect of a matter not pending before the Court.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the commenting on or criticism of Judges or judicial proceedings, after such judicial proceedings have ceased to be matters sub judice, constitutes a contempt of Court under the English Law; whether the Law on this point administered in British Guiana differs from that of the Courts in the United Kingdom, and if so, why; and, whether, if the Judges of British Guiana have acted in contravention of the Rules of British Law, there is any, and what, means open to the person aggrieved by such action to bring their conduct under review of the Home Government, or by appeal to the Privy Council?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

My only knowledge of the case referred to is from the statements made in the House last night, and from the Questions upon the Paper. There is both authority and precedent for punishment for contempt after judicial proceedings have terminated, and in respect of a matter not pending before the Court. It depends entirely on the nature of the act complained of, and whether it is such as to be likely to bring the adminstration of justice into disrepute or contempt. As far as I know there is no difference in this respect between the law which would be administered in the Courts of the United Kingdom, and that applicable in British Guiana. It has been decided that the Court of British Guiana can commit for contempt, and that no appeal lies from their decision.

MR. BERNARD COLERIDGE

asked, Whether anyone had been imprisoned for contempt in respect of a matter not before the Court?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, it was impossible for him to say; but there was not the slightest doubt that punishment could be inflicted after the termination of proceedings in cases which came within the principles he had laid down.