Mr Eyre Ends Evidence In Libel Hearing

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31615, 28 February 1968, Page 24

Mr Eyre Ends Evidence In Libel Hearing

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, February 27. The hearing of the libel action brought by Dean Jack Eyre, a company director and a former Minister of Defence, against the New Zealand Press Association for a total sum of $BO,OOO will enter its third day in the Wellington Supreme Court tomorrow morning.

The claim follows an alleged incorrect report of a meeting addressed by Mr Eyre at Devonport on November 12, 1966, when he said that he would drop a basinful of bombs on North Vietnam. Mr Eyre alleges that the report complained of did not mention his qualification “on military targets only.”

Mr Eyre is claiming from the association $40,000 for publication of the alleged false report in New Zealand newspapers and $40,000 for publication overseas.

Mr Justice McGregor is on the bench. Mr J. H. Dunn, with him Mr A R. Hill, is appearing for Mr Eyre; the Press Association is represented by Mr H. Taylor and Mr N. E. Casey. In a continued cross-exam-ination by Mr Taylor today, Mr Eyre said he agreed that the Press Association had no control over what newspapers published. The apology circulated by the association had not been published in the two Wellington newspapers. Mr Taylor: Newspapers publish what they decide to, and some things they decide not to?—Yes. In the earlier proceedings It was put to you that the only difference between the “Auckland Star” report and the “Herald” report was the additior of the qualification “on military targets?”—l recall that You replied: “That is substantially the difference”?— Yes, I accept that

Other Claims In your original claim for damages you claimed $50,000 from the “Herald”?—Yes. Also $80,300 from the “Herald” and the Press Association jointly?—Yes. As a result of the Court of Appeal decision, the “Herald” has been released from liability?—Yes. You have other claims pending?—Correct Who are they against?— The “Dominion” newspaper and the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation. What amount are you claiming from the “Dominion”?—l think about $120,000, maybe less.

Are you claiming in respect of the publication in the “Dominion” of the “Herald” report of the meeting?—The exact amount I can’t tell. I think there are three different amounts claimed from the “Dominion.” What are you claiming from the Broadcasting Corporation? —550,000 or $60,000. And a claim against anybody else?—A claim against the newspaper “Australian,” printed in Canberra.

How far has that claim proceeded? Has a writ been issued?—Not that I am aware of. His Honour: Have you instructed your solicitor? —I have instructed him to proceed to make claim against the pap-v. Mr Taylor: You also have a claim against Mr Kirk, the

Leader of the Opposition?— He is the second defendant in the claim . gainst the Broadcasting Corporation. George Frederick Gair, the member of Parliament for North Shore, said he recalled an election meeting at Devonport on November 23, 1966. Mr Eyre addressed the meeting and referred to Vietnam, he said. Mr Gair said Mr Eyre spoke at length on the general issues involved in Vietnam and his address was punctuated with interjections. He made reference to bombing in response to an interjection. Next Speaker He said he would drop a basinful of bombs on North Vietnam.

He qualified that within seconds by adding “on military targets”. Mr Gair said he recalled that point had been made quite strongly because, as a candidate in the election and as one who was to follow Mr Eyre on the platform, he was naturally very alive to the questions and their implications.

In response to a further interjection, Mr Eyre referred to Oriental philosophy and explained that the Oriental mind viewed some issues differently from the Occidental mind. The reference to Oriental minds was made several minutes after the reference to bombing. The witness noticed two reporters present Cross-examined by Mr Casey, Mr Gair said he would expect journalists to be following the exchange on Vietnam closely. Mr Casey: Your memory is not too reliable?—l would not agree with that A great deal depends on how directly one is involved in the minute-by-minute developments. ‘Vital Interest’ This was your meeting and you would have been vitally interested in the reports in both the “Star” and the “Herald”? —I certainly would have read the papers as thoroughly as I could have.

Do you recall the interjection which prompted Mr Eyre’s statement about bombs?—l recall the nature of it

Had Mr Eyre had previous questions from this interjector?—That I do not know. They came from many parts. Was this a noisy meeting?— Frankly, no. For a political campaign with any life in it, it was a lively meeting—but not unduly so. There was an interjection and Mr Eyre said he would drop a basinful of bombs on North Vietnam tomorrow?— Yes, I believe the word "tomorrow” was added . Some one called out: “What about women and children?” —That came a few seconds later, after the noisy response to Mr Eyre’s statement about a basinful of bombs. He added his qualification: “on military targets.” After the interjection about women and children?—No. Court’s Question His Honour: Do I understand that the interjections in regard to women and children were after Mr Eyre had qualified it by saying: “on military targets?”—Yes, that is my recollection. Edward Gordon Forbes, a public servant, of Auckland, said he was present at the meeting at Devonport. Mr Eyre said in reply to an interjection that he would drop a basinful of bombs on North Vietnam.

At once there were shouts from the back of the hall and Mr Eyre said: “On military targets only. On military targets only.” After that another interjecter shouted: “What about women and children?” Mr Eyre said: “Women and children were bombed in London, too.” To Mr Casey, the witness said he was present at a meeting in Auckland recently of members of the audience who had attended the Devonport meeting. There were four persons present with Mr Eyre’s lawyer. Mr Casey: You all discussed your recollections of what took place at Devonport?—We did. Do you recall any of the other interjections on the Vietnam subject?—No, I don't.

Are you quite certain that Mr Eyre said: “I would drop a basinful of bombs on North Vietnam tomorrow,” and added immediately “on military targets”?—Yes. And then you said that some time later Mr Eyre started to talk about Oriental differences? —Yes, about 10 minutes later. It was still on the Vietnam situation. What did he speak about in the intervening 10 minutes?—He was still talking about-the reason we were in Vietnam. Can you tell us some of the things he said in those 10 minutes?—No, I cannot. It was a sort of general picture. William Alexander Laurie, a company director, of Auckland, said he was present at the Devonport meeting. He noticed two reporters present. Two Reporters The witness said he noticed the two reporters were talking a lot together. “They didn’t seem to be paying undue attention to reporting.” (Laughter.) “I thought that perhaps they could take things in without listening.” (More laughter.) Mr Casey: Would it surprise you to know that your version of what Mr Eyre said differs from what he has told us?—Well, I suppose it would, but that is the way I remember it. This whole incident was over within a couple of minutes?—Yes. Alice Maud May Keegan, a widow, of Takapuna, said she was present at the meeting and Mr Eyre was emphatic when he spoke of military targets in connection with his remarks on bombing. The witness said she saw a man and a woman reporter present and thought they were most disrespectful to the speaker because they nudged one another and giggled most of the time.

Eric Alfred Charnley, a retired shipwright’s mate, said he was present at the meeting. There were a number of people who had come to the meeting to break it up. “That is why> I sat among

them. I was there to put a stop to these men, if possible. Mr Casey: You were sitting in the middle of this group of interjecters? Yes. There were five or six males and two females.

And were you concerned to make sure they did not become too troublesome? —I told them twice to cut it or belt up. Press Association Horace Leslie Verry, managing-editor of the defendant New Zealand Press Association, said that he was called to give evidence on a subpoena issued by Mr Dunn on behalf of the plaintiff. In answer to Mr Dunn, witness said that the Press Association was a non-profit-making co-operative news agency. “Though a limited liability company, it does not exist for profit,” said Mr Verry. Mr Verry described to the court the machinery of the gathering and sending out of news by the association. Mr Dunn: Do you supply news items daily to Reuters? Yes. That would include from cricket down to politics?— Yes. “I am glad you said ’down to’ Mr Dunn,” said his Honour.

Mr Verry said that Reuters had a contractual right to the news service from the Press Association. He said that Reuters covered many parts of the world and most, if not all, English-speaking countries. Eight Papers There was a similar arrangement with the Aust ralian Associated Press. “It is a contractual arrangement tha twe supply New Zealand news and they supply Australian news to us,” said Mr Verry. In reply to Mr Dunn, he said that the “Herald” report of the meeting addressed by Mr Eyre at Devonport had been distributed as received by the association. It was distributed to eight morning newspapers. Mr Dunn: What would be the procedure with the evening papers? Mr Verry: Most evening paper would rely on copying from the morning newspapers. He said that, in addition, the message hajj been sent to Reuters and A.A.P. Mr Dunn: And was this message, to your knowledge, distributed by Reuters? Mr Verry: To my subsequent knowledge, yes. ‘Almost Identical’ Did the N.Z.P.A. receive messages from overseas which indicated that your message had been distributed by Reuters?—Yes. We had two such messages which said the remarks of Mr Eyre had aroused interest overseas. I believe the reports came from London and Singapore. Mr Dunn: And from Australia?—Yes. From what source?—l think there was something in the “Australian,” but there was nothing to show that it came from the A.A.P. The report was quoting from a newspaper which does not take the A.A.P. In answer to a further question, Mr Verry said that the reports from overseas were distributed to New Zealand papers. Mr Verry said that the reports in the “Star” and the “Herald” of the meeting at Devonport had strong similarity. Both reports made their introduction the expression of Mr Eyre relating to a basinful of bombs, with the difference that the “Star” mentioned military establishments. In other respects the reports were almost identical, said Mr Verry. In the late afternoon counsel saw his Honour in chambers as to the admissibility of certain documents. The hearing will be continued tomorrow morning.