LIBEL ACTION Jury Awards Bognuda Damages Of £2500

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29854, 21 June 1962, Page 9

LIBEL ACTION Jury Awards Bognuda Damages Of £2500

(NZ. Prtsf Association) WELLINGTON, June 20. After a retirement of four and a quarter hours, a jury awarded damages of £2500 to Frederick Ernest Bognuda, a company director of Wellington, at the conclusion of a £10,500 libel action against seven newspapers in the Supreme Court today. The action arose over publication of a report of criminal proceedings during which evidence was given to the effect that there was some suggestion that a man named Bennitt was Bognuda’s illegitimate son.

Bognuda claimed that the presiding Magistrate subsequently made an order prohibiting publication of that section of the evidence relating to the suggestion.

Mr Justice McGregor was on the Bench. Mr G. I. Joseph, with him Mr A. A. T. Ellas, appeared for Bognuda, and Mr H. Taylor, with him Mr B. D. Inglis, for the seven defendants. The jury was asked to determine four issues. The issues and the jury’s answers were:—

1. Was the report a fair and accurate report of the proceedings in the preliminary hearing in the Magistrate’s Court of the charges against one, Bennitt?—Yes. 2. If the answer to issue one is “yes,” was the defendant or its servant or servants who passed the report for publication acting in good faith in publishing the report?—Yes. 3a. When the defendant published the report did such defendant know that the publication of the words had been prohibited by order of the Court?— No.

3b. If not, should it have known?—Yes—if publication took place after the issue of the suppression order.

4. In any event assess the damages and apportion them between the defendants.

Damages were assessed at £2500 and were apportioned as follows. “Christohurch Star,” £BOO, ‘‘The Press," £7OO, “Manaiwaitu Evening Standard,” £3OO, “Hawke’s Bay Herald Tribune,” £250, “Daily Telegraph,” £250, “Ashburton Mail and Guardian,’’ £l5O, and ‘‘Oamaru Mail,’’ £5O. Legal Argument His Honour said the proper course now was to reserve the matter for further consideration of the points of law which have yet to be decided.

After a retirement of about 2J hours the jury returned and the foreman asked his Honour if they had to be unanimous on the issues.

His Honour: Till you have been in retirement for three hours I can take only a unanimous verdict After three hours I am entitled to take a nine to three or 10 to two verdict, whatever it is. A juryman then asked whether the actual words complained of had to be considered as a fair and accurate report or whether the report

of the whole proceedings, together with the words complained of, should be considered in relation to its fairness and accuracy. His Honour: The jury is entitled to take into consideration the whole report in the newspaper and consider if that section is fair and accurate in relation to the whole, having regard to the time factor. Defence Submissions

The defence was one of complete good faith, lack of rnalaoe towards Bognuda. and the publication of a fSr and accurate report of the Court proceedings, said Mr Taylor, in his final address to th e jury. “If you conclude that care, honesty and accuracy were used in the reporting, then the only other main consideration is the suppression order,” he added. He reminded the jury that Bognuda had agreed that the system used in the dissemination of news was a proper one.

“He had no complaint about the method of publicising the Court proceedings and no complaint of newspapers who published without knowledge of an order being made,” said Mr Taylor.

Bognuda’s evidence did, as a matter of fact, absolve the newspapers who published without knowledge of an order being made. Bognuda initially was prepared to accept an apology and the newspapers agreed but admitted no liability in the matter of the order, said counsel.

Bognuda had alleged In evidence that the report was not a true statement of the proceedings of the Court, but under crossexamination admitted he was not in Court at the time, and later further admitted that from his own knowledge he could not suggest that the report was inaccurate.

"I put it to you, gentlemen of the jury, that Mr David’s report of the Court proceedings of October 4. 1960, was a true, fair and accurate one," said Mr Taylor. "Course of Duty” Dealing with the evidence complained of, Mr Taylor said that the defendant newspapers treated it as news and something the public was entitled to read. "The decision to publish the evidence was deliberate, but it was merely carrying out a newspaper’s function in the ordinary course of its duty,” he said. Mr Taylor questioned how the defendant newspapers could have even known about an order made at 2.30 p.m., when they were all domiciled a long distance from Wellington. "This case had to be brought to the Court to disabuse the minds of those people who either believed Benniitt was the illegitimate son of Bognuda or did not know,” said Mr Joseph in his final address. Replying to the matter of an apology, Mr Joseph said that the publishing of an apology was to be taken into consideration only in regard to litigation and the matter of damages.

“If in fact, an apology was published, then it would only serve to diminish the amount of damages awarded.”

Direction to Jury In his summing up his Honour directed the jury to put aside the suppression order in deciding the accuracy and fairness of the report. He explained that the question of whether or not .the order was valid was a matter of law and would be decided at a later date. His Honour said that If the jury was satisfied the report was a fair and accurate one. then the publication of the evidence would not have contained malice.