The Press. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1900. THE STOKE ORPHANAGE CASE AND THE LAW OF LIBEL.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10758, 11 September 1900, Page 4

The Press. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1900. THE STOKE ORPHANAGE CASE AND THE LAW OF LIBEL.

It is evident from enquiries that have been addressed to us in regard to the Stoke Orphanage case, that a large section of the public is as yet very imperfectly informed both as to the law of libel, and the duties of the newspaper Press. We have been shown, for example, statements said to have been sworn before Justices of the ; Peace referring to events alleged to have occurred in the Stoke school more than five years ago, and therefore outside the limits of the enquiry made by the Commission*, and we have been asked if wo would publish those statements. There are several reasons why we are unable to do so. In the first place, we have the assurance of Ministers that the case of the Brothers in charge of the Stoke Orphanage is in the hands of Commissioner Tunbridge, to decide whether there is a case for a criminal prosecution. "We have also the assurance of their Superior that the Brothers are being brought back to New Zealand to meet any charges that may be brought against them. In these circumstances it would be manifestly improper and against the commonest dictates of British fair-play to publish what are avowedly statements for the prosecution, unaccompanied by any evidence or explanation for the defence. We must now wait to see whether the Brothers are bropgbt to trial, and what the result is, before we can publish anything either against them or in their favour. But this is not aIL Many of the statements in question are such as could not be accepted as evidence by any Court. Finally —and this ia the point we are coming to— the publication of such statements is entirely without privilege, so that any newspaper printing them would render itself open to an action for libel, and might be cast ia damages, or the editor, printer, and publisher might be criminally prosecuted and possibly em sent to gaol.

So far as we are concerned, we do not want the law of libel altered to meet the case we have just cited—that is, to enable us to publish any ex jxarte statements sworn privately before a Justice of the Peace. It will be quite time enough, we think, to publish those statements when they are made in open court, when tbe witnesses are subjected to cross-examination, and wheD witnesses can be heard and examined on the other side. But we are also told of sensational statements which haw been made and are going to be made on a public platform, and it is said—"Surely you can publish these." m reply we have to say that under the antiquated law of libel which prevails in New Zealand, there is absolutely no privilege attached to reports of what ie said in a public meeting, and that a newspaper may be cast in heavy damages for reporting a Fpeech if it reflects on any individual, ahhough the speaker himself may escape altogether scot-free. Wβ certainly think that tbe New Zealand kw ought to be altered in this respect to bring it in line with the English law, which provides that a "fair and accurate report" of a public meeting shall be privileged, if tb© meeting 13 tana fid* cad lawfully bold for the discoe-

sion of any matter of public concern. A Bill embodying this provision was introduced into the New Zealand Parliament this session by Mr. Carncross, and, being opposed by the Government, was rejected. All th© Ministers divided against it, and so did theefollowing Canterbury members: -—Messrs Collins, McLachlan, Flatman, and G. W. Kussell. Messrs Buddo, Ell, Laurenson, and Meredith did not vote.

Now we come to the most important point of all. Will it be believed that the newspapers which published any of the evidence given before the Commissioners reflecting on the management of the institution did so at their own peril, and could even now be proceeded against for libel? That is an absolute fact. When the Police Commission opened its sittings in Christcliurch. the newspapers were warned by the Chairman that their reports would not be protected in any way by the law, and tliat if the statements made by any of the witnesses were defamatory, the papers publish, ing them could be proceeded against. That we have no doubt was a correct statement of the law, but we and other journalists felt that as a matter of public duty we were bound to take the risk. So in the case of I the Stoke Orphanage Enquiry. The Nelson papers, being on the spot, published very full reports of the evidence, and so far as we are aware the papers in other parts of the colony published in full the necessarily summarised report sent out by the Press Association. Yet they did it at the risk under our law of an action for libel with heavy damages, and even imprisonment as a possible sequel. If the newspapers had not decided actually to defy the law in this case, not one line of the evidence imputing cruelty, bad management, or under-feeding of the boys in the institution could have been published. One clause in the Bill introduced by Mr. Cavncross, and so strenuously opposed by the Govern- j ment, was framed especially to meet ; such a case. It provided that " A fair and j

" accurate report published in any news- " paper ... of any meeting of any " Commissioners authorised to act by Act ",of Parliament or Governor's warrant, or | " other lawful warrant or authority . .. j " shall be privileged unless it shall be proved I " that such report or publication was pub- j "lished or made maliciounly." And the Bill, as we have already stated, containing this most reasonable, provision, was thrown out on the second reading. We ask our readers whether it is fair that newspapers should hare to run such risks as they incur under the present law, if they attempt to give the public information, which the public have a right to know. We ask them what they think of the conduct of members of the Government and of those Canterbury members we have named in either opposing or failing to ' support such a reasonable amendment of j

I the law as that proposed by Mr Carncross —necessary, be it remembered, not so much in the interests of the newspapers as of the public themselves. If they want the truth i told about our public institutions, in common fairness they should go to ! their members, and insist that the gags which at present tend to stifle freedom of discussion in the public Press should be removed. It would be well, we think, to ask Messrs Collins, McLachlan, Fiatman, Russell, Buddo, EH, Laurensoo and Meredith these three questions:—(l) Whether they think evidence given before a Royal Commission such as that on the Stoke Orphanage should be refiorted; (2) whether they think newsP*pe« publishing such evidence should be subject to all the penalties of the law of

libel; and (3) if they answer the last question in the negative, why they did not vote for Mr Carncross's Bill. j