CHARGE OF CRIMINAL LIBEL

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27641, 23 April 1955, Page 8

CHARGE OF CRIMINAL LIBEL

Complaint By Minister Of Works

PUBLISHER AND EDITOR TO BE TRIED

(New Zea Lana Press Association)

WELLINGTON, April 22. An “unrestrained and intemperate attack’’ on William Stanley Goosman in his official capacity as a Minister of the Crown was alleged today by his counsel, Mr W. E. Leicester, at the opening of the hearing of a criminal libel action against the publisher and the editor of the Labour Party’s weekly newspaper, the “Standard.” The article complained of, Mr Leicester said, charged Goosman with being guilty of the murder of staff members of the State Hydro-electric Department, which was under his control. Before Mr J. S. Hanna, SM, the defendants, James Roberts, newspaper publisher, and Sydney Bruce Pickering, on hearing the charge, elected trial by jury. The information, as for an indictable offence, charged Pickering and Roberts jointly with publishing in the “Standard” on March 16, 1955, a defamatory libel of and concerning William Stanley Goosman. Mr R. G. Collins appeared with Mr Leicester for the informant, and Mr T. P. Cleary for the defendants. Mr Leicester said the information had been laid by Goosman, who had been a National Party member of Parliament since 1938. Since 1949 he had held various portfolios as a Minister. “The procedure adopted in this case is one reserved for serious cases and this is indicated, your Worship, by the requirement that leave, under the Defamation Act, must be obtained before a prosecution can begin,” said counsel.

The case was of the utmost gravity, the Minister being charged in his official capacity with the grossest negligence and the murder of members of his department, Mr Leicester said. No worse allegation could be levelled- against the informant, and none could do more to vilify him, to expose him to hatred and contempt, and none was more likely to bring him into disrepute. Basis of Complaint After reading the statutory definition of defamatory libel, Mr Leicester read the entire article on which the complaint was based. The article was adjoined, he said, by a block of the head of the informant Over the block was the heading “In the Dock,” and below it the caption, “Mr Goosman—lhe charge is murder, the verdict must be guilty.” Mr Leicester also said that a billboard dated March 16 and issued by the “Standard” read: “Case of Murder Exposed.” fil the article, Mr Leicester contended, were eight specific instances of language to which he would draw attention. Four of those references were directed against the informant personally, and four against the Government generally. These were designed to expose the informant, as a Minister of the Crown, to public hatred and contempt. The four personal references, said Mr Leicester, were:

(1) The heading and caption to the block which, he submitted, were in themselves an imputation of a criminal offence. (2) “It’s a case of murder . . . Works Minister Goosman’s broken promise has sentenced electrical workers to death.” (3) “Four have died in six gory weeks in Hawke’s Bay ... As Minister of Works and Electricity, Mr Goosman could have saved those lives. He could have saved them with a wave of his Ministerial pen. But he left those men to die.” (4) The sub-heading, *‘A~ Horrible Prospect,” followed by the words, “the dead and maimed bodies of men are piling up on the trail of the slow-moving Works and Electricity Minister.” Article Read to Court The four references to the Government. which Mr Leicester submitted imputed responsibility to the informant as Minister, were the subheading, “And here is the reason,” and the words which followed Hk “The people ask: Why were those recommendations not adopted? Mr Goosman pledged his support. There must be some reason for the stubborn refusal to save the lives of electrical workers. “Money is the reason. The men

who have been killed, died for cash. It is murder.

“Power boards took exception to the recommendations. In some this meant big expense. They applied pressure to the Government with, apparently, this distorted reasoning. “Human life is more expendable than money. So the recommendations were shelved in the grubby cubby holes of the Government, and the doom of the electrical workers was sealed. “Mr Goosman and the ponderous Government machine stand indicted on a charge of murder.” Mr Leicester added the headlines “Workers doomed to a .horrible death,” and “It’s a case of murder” to the four general references. Reference was also made to the layout and headlines, and Mr Leicester said that it was common practice for an editor to write the bill poster himself. In a prosecution of this nature, the case, in its initial stage, was limited to formal matters, said Mr Leicester. The truth or otherwise of the matters objected to should not be inquired into until and unless the defence pleaded justification. He would therefore confine the., evidence he called substantially to proof of publication. Former Editor’s Evidence William Joseph Wilson, a public servant and, until August last year, editor of the “Standard,” appearing under subpoena, said that he had always acccepted full responsibility for all material in the newspaper, though he might not have written it The headlines and lay-out of the front page were always his particular responsibility. Asked by Mr Leicester whether he thought the front page of the paper with the article in question would have been handled by Pickering as editor, Wilson said he thought a story of such sensational implications would, in most cases, be the responsibility of the editor. When shown a copy of the billboard. Wilson said that his usual practice was to draft the wording, and be shown a proof of it Goosman. in evidence led by Mr Leicester, said there could be no uoubt that the photograph with the article was of him.

Mr Leicester: Have you read the article fully and carefully? Goosman: Many times. Mr Leicester: Could you tell us whether or not you regard the article as defamatory of yourself and reflecting seriously on your position as a Minister of the Crown? ' Goosman: Extremely so. Defence Submissions Mr Cleary said that he did not propose to call evidence, but he wished, as it was the first occasion cn which the matter had been dealt with in public, to say certain things which could have been said at that stage had the proceedings been civil proceedings. The defendants did not impute to Goosman personally any criminal misconduct or wrongdoing, still less that he should or could be charged with murder, said Mr Cleary. “Our Contention is that the article complained of is a criticism, a condemnation of the failure to adopt certain safety recommendations made for the protection of electrical workers in the course of their work,” said counsel. Mr Cleary said that although the article was couched in language that was regretfully extravagant, it was contended that even the most liberal reader could not take it as an allegation of wilful murddr against Goosman personally. The defendants wished to make it amply clear that they had not made any charge of criminal misconduct or wilful misconduct. For the flamboyant heading and uie intemperate article, they wished to express their regret and had no wish to conduct political controversy on such a level. “The defendants firmly deny that the publication of the article constitutes a criminal offence, and will stoutly defend themselves.” said Cleary. At the end of the hearing the defendants pleaded not guilty. Bail was allowed each in his own recognisance of £lOO. Mr Leicester asked that the Supreme Court hearing be conducted in the usual way. The Magistrate pointed out that this would mean that the Crown Prosecutor would take the case.