Decision Reserved In “Truth” Libel Appeal

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29250, 7 July 1960, Page 20

Decision Reserved In “Truth” Libel Appeal

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright)

LONDON, July 5. Judgment was reserved by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council today in the appeal by Truth (N.Z.), Ltd., against which £ll,OOO damages were awarded by a jury in the New Zealand Supreme Court in a libel action brought by Philip North Holloway, Minister of Industries and Commerce. After Mr R. B Cooke had concluded his submissions on behalf of the publishers, Vis-

count Simonds, presiding, told Mr W. E. Leicester (for Mr Holloway)! “Their Lordships do not think it necessary to trouble you.” His Lordship told Mr Cooke: “You have said everything that can be said on behalf of the appellants very cogently.” Mr Holloway complained in the action that a passage in an article in the issue of the newspaper dated March 24. 1959, meant, having regard to the context in which it appeared, that “he is and was a person who has acted and is prepared to act dishonourably in connexion with the issue of import licences.” The publishers denied that the words bore the meaning alleged and also pleaded that the article was published on an occasion of qualified privilege. Their appeal to the New Zealand Court of Appeal was dismissed in November. 1959.

Mr Cooke said the article was one of a series in the newspaper dealing with the affairs of Mr W. Freer, M.P., and such matters as his connexion with Hyman Yudt .known as Harry Judd, an Auckland importer of Czechoslovak glass.

Contending that the trial Judge misdirected the jury, Mr Cooke said it was doing no injustice to Mr Holloway’s case to say it was founded to a considerable degree on the words “see Phil and Phil would fix it” appearing in a passage in which those words were attributed to Mr Judd on conversation with someone wanting to know how to go about a proposition for developing trade with Czechoslovakia.

If “Truth” itself had said that the person should “see Phil and Phil would fix it” in the context of an article relating to alleged import licence irregularities, then the expression “fix” might be rightly said to bear a sinister sense, said Mr Cooke. But the natural inference in 1 this case was that the word was used as a natural, conversational expression without any sinister sense, and the defendant’s contention had always been that these words were “completely innocent.”

Lord Tucker: Wasn’t it a matter for the jury ? Mr Cooke agreed, but complained that the trial Judge ignored the fact that the word “fix” was shown as having been said by Judd in this conversation. Complaining of other alleged disdirections, Mr Cooke said it was true that the Judge suggested to the jury that they should read the whole article carefully. But at no stage did he qualify a specific direction he gave as to the irrelevance, in his view, of the article’s call for' a general inquiry.