DEFAMATION BILL INTRODUCED

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27408, 22 July 1954, Page 12

DEFAMATION BILL INTRODUCED

Libel And Slander Assimilated

CLAUSE ON OFFER OF AMENDS

(New Zealand. Press Association) WELLINGTON, July 21. Amendments to the law on libel, slander, and malicious falsehoods are proposed in a Defamation Bill introduced in the House of Representatives today. The bill incorporates some of Britain’s legislation on the subject, but goes further by abolishing the distinction between libel and slander. It also incorporates all the existing statutory enactments relating to the law of libel and slander except the sections of the Crimes Act that relate to defamatory libel and criminal defamation.

The bill assimilates libel and slander by providing that it shall not be necessary to prove special damage in any action for defamation, whether libel or slander. Under the existing law special damage need not be proved in actions for libel, but it must be proved, with certain exceptions, in actions for slander.

A new provision, based on the British Defamation Act, 1952, though it goes further, provides that in an action for slander of title, slander of goods, or other malicious falsehood, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove special damage if the words are calculated to cause pecuniary damage to the plaintiff. Under the common law as at present in force in New Zealand, it is necessary to prove special damage in all such actions. Offer of Amends There is a clause dealing with unintentional defamation. Under the common law it is no defence to an action for libel or slander to show the absence of any intention to defame, and accordingly the most unlikely coincidence or unfortunate mistake may result in the publication of defamatory words involving a liability for damages. The clause alters this provision by enabling a person who has innocently published a libel or slander to make an offer of amends, and thus escape further liability. To constitute an innocent publication the publisher must prove that he and any servant or agent of his who was concerned with the contents of the publication exercised all reasonable care. He must also prove either that the publisher did not intend to publish the words of and concerning the plaintiff, and did not know t)f circumstances by virtue of which they might be understood to refer to him, or that the words were not defamatory on the face of them, and that the publisher did not ’ know of circumstances by virtue of which they might be understood to be defamatory to the plaintiff. An offer of amends is said in the bill to mean an offer to publish a suitable correction of the words complained of, and a sufficient apology, and also where copies of a document containing the words have been distributed, to take all reasonable practicable steps to notify persons to wbbm copies have been distributed that the words are alleged to be defamatory of the party aggrieved. An offer of amends must be accompanied by an affidavit specifying the facts relied on as showing that the publication was innocent.

If an offer of amends is accepted and duly performed, no action for defamation is to be commenced or continued against the person making the offer, but the Supreme Court may, in default of agreement, determine any question as to the steps to be taken in fulfilment of the offer, and may award costs, to be paid by the person making the offer, to the party aggrieved. Rejection of Offer

If an offer of amends is not accepted, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove that the publication was innocent and- that the offer was made as soop as practicable and has not been withdrawn. The publisher must prove that the words were written by the author innocently. Provision is made whereby an agreement for indemnifying any person against civil liability shall not be unlawful where at the time of publication that person does not know that the matter is defamatory, or he reasonably believes that there is a good defence to any action brought upon it. The bill also extends the statutory defence of qualified privilege for certain reports. It is not to be a defence to a newspaper or a broadcasting station if it is proved that the defendant has been requested by the plaintiff to publish in the same manner as the defamatory matter a reasonable letter or statement by way of explanation or contradiction and has refused or neglected to do so. or has* done so in a manner not adequate or not reasonable in the circumstances.

Fair and accurate reports of the proceedings of any legislature or courts of justice outside New Zealand are to be regarded as privileged in New Zealand, subject to explanation or eogtradiction. The same principle Wlu be followed with fair and accuta*e reports of proceedings of international organisations to which New Zealand belongs, as well as with fair ■Maecurate re P orts of inquiries held SISE-i e r« ul r s °* any porting, incustrlal, religious, or cultural organ-

isation, of public meetings held in New Zealand for a lawful purpose relating to matters of public concern, and of general meetings of incorporated companies or associations constituted or operating in New Zealand (except private companies). Fair and accurate copies of extracts from public registers or other documents open to public inspection and notice of advertisements published by any court of Justice in New Zealand or elsewhere will have the same degree of protection. The Attorney-Genera) (Mr T. C. Webb) said that he intended later to have the bill read a second time pro forma and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee.