LAW OF LIBEL.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13906, 3 December 1910, Page 10

LAW OF LIBEL.

♦ MORE ABOUT THE PAMPHLET. RESENTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCILLORS. (SPECIAL TO "THE FEXSS."j WELLINGTON, December 2. I In moving the second reading of the j Law of Libel Act Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council to-day, the Attorney-General said the Bill did not j go quite as far- as the No-lieenso law. I and he thought rightly so. After re- : ferring briefly to the various clauses of : tho Bill. Dr. Findlay said that every ; now and then the public sense of ; decency and fair play was outraged by '_ the production and widespread publi-j cation of some vile, false, and black- j guardly pamphlet, directed against the j character of prominent men, especially those, in public life. The publisher was invariably some worthless, if not ! criminal, creature, who eked out his living by tho sale on the streets or elsewhere, of his defamatory production. His purpose was never public interest or benefit, but to put money ■, into his own pocket by means of base attack upon decent men and women. ] .Such a man, making a living in such j a way was worse than an idle vagabond who.* under the law of to-day, we had no hesitation in punishing by summary proceedings before a magistrate. liiitortunately, the law of to-day afforded no effective means of prosecution for these defamatory ruffians. He had drafted a clause some time ago and had submitted it to the Prime Minister when the Bill was before "another place." Sir Joseph Ward, however, felt that as he was the one who had i suffered more than anyone else from this mercenary defamation, ho could hardly take tho initiative, and he refused to accept the- amendment. Hβ (Dr. Findlay) respected tho delicacy of the Prime Minister, but he thought it was : the duty of the Council and public men 'to see that protection was given against such brutal attacks. He had not consulted Cabinet in regard to the amendment he was bringing forward, but ho was going to ask the Council to afford, protection against the degraded methods of these base villains. He was confident that if the Council inserted the clause and sent it on to "the other place," neither party would demur as to tho insertion of tho clause. The clause he would move in Committee was as follows: — 10a (1) Tiip indictable offence of publishing a defamatory libel or of criminal defamation within the moaning of the Crimes Act, 1908, shall also bo an offence punishable on summary conviction before a Magistrate by a. fine of £100, or by imprisonment for three months. (2) In any such summary proceedings it shall be a good defence that the defamatory matter published 'by the defendant was true, and that the publication thereof was for tho public benefit, but no evidence of tho truth of such matter shall be admissible until and unless tho defendant proves that, assuming the matter so published tojlie true, the publication thereof was ;"or the public benefit. (3) An information for any offence punishable on summary conviction under this section shall be taken, and Heard before a Magistrate only, <*nd | no such prosecution shall be commenced -without the order of a Magistrate, and notice of the intention to apply for such an order shall be given to the defendant, who shall have an opportunity of being heard against the application. . , The only change to be made m the law under the amendment, continued Dr. Findlay, was that when such a man as they had in mind came before a Magistrate, he should first be called on to show that the information was for the (public benefit. In those brutal attacks, said Dr. Findlay, the end was not public benefit at all. As a matter of fact, he knew of a recent case where sums of money were demanded and where a total issue of a certain I pamphlet was offered at a price, if the person attacked chose to pay it. Like a man, however, the person concerned had refused to pay the money. Vile accusations of the nature referred to should be dealt with, and he believed the clause he had mentioned would meet the evil and afford some reasonable measure of protection to public men, who were trying to do their • ducy •to the country. (Hear, hear.) ... The Hon. W. C. F. Carncross said he considered that the Bill would afford a measure of protection to newspapers which they had not enjoyed in the past. He welcomed the measure as an instalment of justice to the newspaperprofession, and thought it would not be many years before the scope of the Bill would be extended. In his opinion the Attorney-jQeneral had done the right thing in bringing in the amendment he had outlined. •ffke Hon. J. E. Jenkinson expressed the opinion that the amendment had given more pleasure to tho Council than anything they had had before them for weeks. He thought tho clause drafted by Dr. Findlay would meet the difficulty. The Council was pretty well conversant with the filthy pamphlet, and they did not want to say very much about it,, as it had already been much advertised. The production arose from a cesspool of a mind, and erected a structure of filth and mire. There was no senr.e of justice or cleanliness in the production, which was simply an attompt to destroy a public man. Almost every man in New Zealand would be most anxious to see such a clause put on the statute book ac the Attorney-General suggested. He thought, however, tar more discretion should be left to judges and magistrates in deciding what was defamation or libel. Tne Council should see that not only newspapers were protected, but that public men should be protected from the vile j abuse heaped on them. | Tho Hon. It. A. Loughnan expressed his hearty approval of tho Bill. .No man could object to the clause proposed by Dr. Findlay. It was aimed at scoundrels; only. The Hon. W. Beehan referred to a libel which had been printed against himself in a Northern paper. Tlie article, he said., was couched in the lowest and most vile language. This had been written by the same man who had figured prominently of late. Three months' imprisonment was too little, for such a man as he referred to would do it and pose as a martyr, and he would "do it on his head," so to speak. Dr. Findlay: Don't you believe it; every man is afraid of "three months' hard*." Mr Beehan added that he thought there should be a longer term of imprisonment and a heavier monetary penalty. While- they were at it they should make the Bill the terror of evil doers. The Hon. J". Barr said that the publication to which Mr Beehan had referred in no way represented the opinion of Labour. He believed the man who hud produced the pamphlet that had been so rightly condemned was to a great extent a*tool, although a willing tool. _ The Hon. C. M. Luke and the Hon. H. F. Wigram also welcomed the Bill. Dr. Findlay, in reply, said the clause ho had framed was not for the pro- j tection of any one man._ Be hadi never met a Minister in New Zealand •who had not had to suffer from some similar hint of vile abuse and blackguardly attack. The second reading of the Bill was agreed to. ' i When the Bill was in Committee the I new clause proposed by the AttorneyGeneral -was adopted, and the Bill was put. through its final stages.