It has been held that suits for nullity of marriage or judicial separation may be heard in camera, but not a petition for dissolution of marriage ; L. R. 1 P. & D. 640 ; this case was put upon the ground that the matter was controlled, to that result, by 20 & 21 Vick c. 85, § 22 ; but in a later case there was a distinct disapproval of the limitation, and it was said that as the ecclesiastical courts had the power to hear nullity suits in private when it was desirable for the sake of public decency, the same power must ex ist in other cases where it was required for the same reason; L. R. 3 P. & M. 230. It was held that under the English practice, a law court had power to try a case in camera, without a jury, when the parties consent; 53 J. P. 822.
In 4 Ch. D. 174, Jessel, M. R., considered "that the High Court of Justice had no pow er to hear cases in private' even with the Consent of the parties, except cases affecting lunatics or wards of court, or where a pub lic trial would defeat the object of the ac tion." The report of the case contains many interesting interpellations of the court dur ing the argument.
Lord Esher, M. R., said in Pittard v. Oli ver that as to proceedings in courts of justice it was for the interest of all the public to hear what takes place in court; [1891] 1 Q. B. 474, where it was held that where matters dis cussed in camera were privileged, the pres ence of reporters did not take away the privi lege. And in another case the same judge said that "public policy requires that some hardship should be suffered by individuals rather than that judicial proceedings should be held in secret ;" [1893] 1 Q. B. 65. Again, it was said by North, J., in holding the publication of proceedings in open court to be privileged, that "the general rule is an ex cellent one, that legal proceedings should be in public ;" [1894] 3 Ch. 193, where it was held contempt to publish any account how ever meagre, and whether accurate or inac curate, of a bearing in camera.
As long ago as 1829, Mr. Justice Bayley declared. "that it is one of the essential qual ities of a court of justice that its proceedings should be public, and that all parties who may be desirous of hearing what is going on, if there be room in the place for that purpose,—provided they do not interrupt the proceedings, and provided there is no specific reason why they should be removed,—have a right to be present for the purpose of hear ing what is going on" ; 10 B. & C. 237; it
was there held that an action would be against a justice of the peace for excluding from his court the attorney of an absent defendant.
The subject was fully argued and consid ered in Scott v. Scott, [1913] A. C. 417, in the House of Lords and certain questions were finally settled. It was there held that a suit for nullity of marriage cannot be beard in camera. The only exceptions to the general rule prescribing publicity of courts are suits affecting wards, those in relation to lunatics, and thirdly, those where secrecy (as a secret process or discovery) is of the essence of the cause. The consent of the parties to try a case in camera does not give jurisdiction. Here, after a hearing in camera in the court below, one of the' parties had exhibited to three persons copies of the tes timony, and was adjudged to be in contempt. This judgment was reversed above. In his opinion Lord Shaw quoted Hallam as saying that "be ranks the publicity of judicial pro ceedings even higher than the rights of Par liament as a guaranty of public security" and proceeds: "There is no greater danger than that which proceeds little by little, un der cover of rules of procedure, and at the instance of the judges themselves." It has been pointed out that as to two of the exceptions above stated, infancy and lunacy, the jurisdiction of the court is par ental or administrative. Even here Lord Shaw, partially disagreeing with the other judges, was of opinion that neither infants nor lunatics should be prohibited from pub lishing facts relating to themselves merely because they were elicited at a trial in cam era. The English Children's Act 1908 and the Incest Act 1908 both provide that certain criminal trials under those acts should be held in camera.
The settled judgment of our ancestors and ourselves is that publicity in the administra tion of the law is on the whole worth more to society than it costs. Pollock, Expansion of C. L. 32.
A hearing in camera differs from one at chambers (q. v.) ; the former being a private hearing by a court and the latter a hearing by a judge not in a regular session of court.
See 15 Am. L. Rev.. 427; People v. Mur ray, 89 Mich. 276, 50 N. W. 995, R. A. 809, 28 Am. St. Rep. 294, where the subject is fully discussed. See IN CAMERA.
The subject is further treated under