¹ A.G. v. Dissenchik (1962) 30 P.M. 236. The evening paper Yediot Aharonot was also prosecuted for a similar report on the same matter but was acquitted by both instances: A.G. v. Moses (1960) 28 P.M. 231. The prosecution did not appeal to the Supreme Court.

² On these differences of approach between the two systems much has already been written. Recently, Dr. Goldfarb discussed the question in his book The Contempt Power (Columbia, 1963), in particular at pp. 77—100. The author also analyses the historical and political background to the differences.

³ Primarily, sec. 126 of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936, which states:

“Any person who by any means of publication publishes news, reports or criticism which are calculated to influence the mind of any judge, magistrate or settlement officer who may be called upon to give a decision in any pending action or other judicial proceeding or to influence the mind of witnesses, or to prevent persons from giving information to the authorities, is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for six months.”

⁴ Formerly by sec. 2 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 1924; this was subsequently replaced by sec. 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 1929 (Laws of Palestine, cap. 23), which states:

“(1) If, while any proceedings, civil or criminal, are pending in any court, any person shall publish any writing or do any act in reference to such proceedings intended or calculated to prejudice such proceedings or to interrupt or delay the course of justice, or to bring into contempt the court before which such proceedings are pending, the High Court may, upon application of any party to such proceedings, or of its own motion or on the motion of the Attorney General, summon such person to appear to show cause why he should not be punished for his contempt by fine or imprisonment and, in default of appearance, may proceed against such person by way of attachment in manner provided in case of disobedience to an order or injunction.

(2) Any order for a penalty made under this section shall not exceed imprisonment for a period of one year or a fine of one hundred pounds or both such penalties.”

⁵ See, for example: A.G. v. Rubashov (1930) 1 P.L.R. 876, 879–82; A.G. v. Schwartz (1923–30) 1 P.L.R. 883; A.G. v. Avuteli (1934) 7 Rot. 116, 118–19.

⁶ A.G. v. Editor of Davar (1951) 5 P.D. 1017.

⁷ Art. 43 of the Palestine Order in Council formerly fixed the limits and the scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice and did not include among the powers of that Court jurisdiction in criminal matters; sec. 4, which was legislation subordinate to art. 43, purported to give the High Court such jurisdiction.

⁸ Apart, perhaps, from the partial application of sec. 4 for the prevention of future publications—according to an obiter dictum of one of the judges. See: (1951) 5 P.D. 1037, per Justice Olshan; Gorney, “Contempt of Court” (1955–56) 12 Hapraktit 319–20.

⁹ From Justice Agranat's judgment at p. 1053.

¹⁰ At pp. 1029, 1053.

¹¹ See sec. 48(4) of the Law; Schwartz v. Sabo (1961) 15 P.D. 1966, 1968.

¹² Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616, 630; 40 S. Ct. 17, 22 (1919).

¹³ From Justice Brandeis's judgment in Schaefer v. U.S., 251 U.S. 466; 40 S. Ct. 259, 266 (1920).

¹⁴ This was the test which was first propounded by Justice Holmes in Shenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47; 39 S. Ct. 247 (1919); it was subsequently accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States as the leading criterion in Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 289; 62 S. Ct. 190, 203, 206 (1941).

¹⁵ Kol H a'am v. Minister of the Interior, S.J. vol. 1, 90.

¹⁶ See Ulpanei Hasrata Ltd. v. Geri (1962) 16 P.D. 2407.

¹⁷ On some important differences between the prohibition of publications under sec. 41 and the censorship of newspapers and films, see Justice Sussman's judgment in the Ma'ariv Case, at pp. 177–78.

¹⁸ See Bridges v. California, supra; Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331 (1940); Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367 (1947).

¹⁹ In the Pennekamp Case, Justice Frankfurter even adduced English authorities.

²⁰ See A.G. v. Editor of Lavar, n. (6), at pp. 1024–25, 1039, 1041, 1051.

²¹ At p. 1051.

²² See (1963) 17 P.D. 180, §13.

²³ Justice Berinson based himself on R. v. Clarke ((1910) 103 L.T. 636; 27 T.L.R. 32) as direct authority—citing the following words from Darling's judgment, which clearly suggest reservations as to the American approach, though they do not expressly mention that country by name:

“It is most important that the administration of justice in this country should not be hampered—as it is in some other countries … We are determined while we are here to do nothing to substitute in this country trial by newspaper for trial by jury; and those who attempt to introduce that system in this country, even in its first beginnings, must be prepared to suffer for it.”

²⁴ At pp. 187–89.

²⁵ Despite the fact that contemptuous conduct of this kind is held to be a common law misdemeanour, there are no reported cases on it for almost 60 years. The writer of the article on Contempt of Court in Halsbury comments: “The procedure by indictment has now fallen into disuse”—Hahbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed., vol. 8, p. 4, n. (o).

²⁶ (1951) 5 P.D. p. 1055.

²⁷ Sec. 42 of the Courts Law, which provides:

“(a)Where a person disturbs the proceedings of the court within sight of the court or its proximity, the court may order his removal or compel him, by imprisonment or a fine, to conduct himself properly.

(b) The provisions of this section shall add to the powers of the court under any other law; but a person shall not be punished for conduct for which imprisonment or a fine has been imposed on him under this section.

(c) Written notice of an order for imprisonment or a fine under subsection (a) shall forthwith be given to the President of the Supreme Court, who may annul or mitigate the order.”

²⁸ Green v. U.S. 356 U.S. 165 (1958).

²⁹ Contempt of Court, a Report by “Justice” (London, 1959) 27–29.

³⁰ Administration of Justice Act, 1960, 8 & 9 Eli z. II, Cap. 65, sec. 13.