Jury Awards £250 Damages For Libel

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29240, 25 June 1960, Page 14

Jury Awards £250 Damages For Libel

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, June 24. William Alfred Montague McLean, aged <5, a psychiatric charge attendant, of Papakura, was awarded £250 damages for libel against Truth (N.Z.) Ltd. by a jury in the Supreme Court at Wellington today. McLean had claimed damages of £3OOO. The Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) entered judgment for the plaintiff. The jury retired for two and aquarter hours.

“It seems to me that some of the witnesses are lying, and if you share that view it is your responsibility to decid'e which of them is lying,” said his Honour in his summing-up.

His Honour said it was admitted the article was a strong attack and criticism of the conduct of mental hospitals and the jury might think that inferentially it contained attacks on a large number of people who administered mental hospitals. Indeed, it might be thought to be an attack on the superintendent of Kingseat Hospital, an officer with a long period of service in mental hospitals who seemed to be charged with discreditable conduct by trying to hush up a scandalous affair and suborning witnesses not to tell the truth.

His Honour said a newspaper was permitted under certain circumstances to make such grave and sweeping charges, and there was no difference between its rights and those of a private individual.

It was entitled to expose a public scandal provided the statements it made were true and the opinions it expressed were proper and justifiable.

A newspaper might properly appear in the role of knight in shining armour, but if the statements of fact were untrue and defamatory, then the newspaper might appear in the role of a monster of injustice and oppression.

“It is important sometimes to read the whole of an article because the defamatory statements in a particular part may not appear defamatory when viewed as a whole.

“In this case, I know of nothing in the text of the article, and counsel has not suggested anything, that takes away the sting of the words complained of-

“Directed at Minister” “Although the article is primarily and clearly directed against the Minister of Health, he is free to take what action he thinks fit. He may be entitled to take the view that his record of humanity is such that he is not called on to take proceedings and will act only when he receives eye-witness accounts people choose to make to him. That is no affair of mine or yours. “The matter is one of grave importance to McLean and of equal importance to “Truth.” “I am afraid it will be your duty to decide which of the witnesses has been telling the truth as it seems conflicting stories have been heard these last few days. They can’t all be explained away by saying some were mistaken. His Honour said the onus was on the plaintiff to prove that the public reading “Truth” would take the words to refer to him. that they were defamatory of him in that they tended to lower him in the estimation of decent right-thinking men and that ,the words were published to persons other than himself. It was a Judged duty to decide whether the passage was capable of a defamatory meaning and his Honour had no hesitation in ruling that this passage was capable of it.

.It accused the plaintiff of a most despicable bit of conduct, but the jury still had to decide whether it was defamatory. Libel Defined

His Honour said that not every defamatory statement could be the grounds for a libel action. It was a defence if it could be proved that the words used were true and the question of whether they were true or not was the main part of the action. To succeed on a plea of justification a defendant had to prove that the sting of the libel was true. It might be thought that “Truth” had been actuated by proper motives in publishing the passage. It might honestly have believed the matter to be true and published it in that honest belief, but that was irrevelant. The question was whether the statements were true. If not the defence of justification failed.

His Honour said it had been suggested that McLean was a brutal thug who had prostituted his knowledge of wrestling by brutally ill-treating a mental patient. There was only one witness of the alleged incident and who swore that “Truth’s” account was true. His evidence must not be lightly set aside; but, at the same time, the jury was not bound to accept it.