tim's experiment

We have all, I suppose, been enjoying the detailed accounts of a divorce case in the newspapers over the past week. The case involves a couple who (I presume by order of the court) cannot be named. The squabble is basically over money, which has led to a great deal of detailed discussion of lavish lifestyles, but there have also been some excursions into the unhappy couple’s love life. It seems he is a real estate tycoon with a rich daddy, which narrows the field considerably, so I suppose lots of people know who is being talked about. But I don’t, so if you find out it was not from me.

The proceedings bring to mind a great scandal of the 1930s, involving the then Duke and Duchess of Argyll. The Duchess wanted a divorce, which in those days was not granted on such meagre pussy-footing grounds as “irretrievable breakdown”. The seeker of divorce had to prove what was called a matrimonial offence, the usual candidates being cruelty, desertion or adultery. The Duchess went for cruelty, and this involved her giving evidence over several days of the “Hunnish practices” to which she was subjected by her husband. I am not sure quite what this euphemism meant in the 1930s, but clearly the Duke’s bedroom tastes were extensive and eclectic, running well outside conventional copulation in the missionary position. Newspapers at the time found this irresistible and of course as it was part of the proceedings it could all be reported. Even the Daily Telegraph devoted a whole page per day to the Duchess’s account of her ordeals. After the case it was decided that rich people should not be required to spread their love lives over the newspapers to get a divorce (poor people could not afford to divorce in those days) so a law was passed restricting reports of divorce proceedings to a few bare bones.

In due course this law was copied in Hong Kong, as was customary in those days. And it is still with us. It is called the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Ordinance, aka Chapter 287. Here is the relevant part:

(1) It shall not be lawful to print or publish, or cause or procure to be printed or published-

(a) (Repealed 68 of 1995 s. 6)
(b) in relation to any judicial proceedings for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for judicial separation, any particulars other than the following, that is to say- (Amended 80 of 1997 s. 85)
(i) the names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses;
(ii) a concise statement of the charges, defences and counter-charges in support of which evidence has been given;
(iii) submissions on any point of law arising in the course of the proceedings, and the decision of the court thereon;
(iv) the summing-up of the judge and the finding of the jury (if any) and the judgment of the court and observations made by the judge in giving judgment. (Amended 68 of 1995 s. 6)

Now I take that to mean that you can publish the list, and only the list. Interesting details of arguments with Daddy, of for that matter arguments between Mr and Mrs, are out. In fact the evidence is out, unless the judge is kind enough to include generous quantities in his summing up. On the other hand the names and addresses of the parties are clearly supposed to be in. And this is as it should be. Marriage and its dissolution are both official events which should be public. So why are we being treated to lots of apparently illegal reports and an apparently extra-legal ban on names? I have no idea. I have written a letter to the editor of the SCMP about this but under the circumstances they may not wish to publish it. We shall see.